
nass rtX H 

Book_Ji±Ai 



GopyrightK?_ 



COKfRIGHT DEPOSm 



The Trial of 

Scott N earing 

and THE AMERICAN 
SOCIALIST SOCIETY 




New York 
The Rand School of Social Science 



% 



The Trial of 

Scott Nearing 

and 

THE AMERICAN 
SOCIALIST SOCIETY 



Presiding Judge— JULIUS M. MAYER 

ATTORNEYS: — ■ 

For the Government For the Defense 

Earl B. Barnes Seymour Stedman of Chicago 

S. John Block of New York 
Walter Nelles of New 7ork 
I. M. Sackin of New York 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 



New York City 
February 5th to 19th, 1919 



&ttf 



*VI 



Copyright 1919 

by The Rand School of Social Science 

New York City 



©'0LA525361 



IV] A i " J itJiu Strathmore Press, Inc. 

New York City 






Introduction 

The printed record of Scott Nearing's trial is of 
genuine value, not only because of the defendant's 
lucid exposition of the philosophy of Socialism, but 
also because it presents an authentic record of an 
American political trial. In the venerable court room 
of the United States District Court, in the City of New- 
York, a prominent Socialist, a scholar and writer, was 
on trial, ostensibly on the charge of a grave felony. 
For days he spoke to twelve men "good and true," his 
fellow citizens chosen to pass judgment on his guilt 
or innocence, and to a judge officiating as the repre- 
sentative incarnate of the austere majesty of American 
law. He spoke technically in his own defense. But 
he did not defend himself. His personal conduct and 
motives, his personal interest and fate were barely 
touched on. They were the merest incidents of the 
trial. It was of larger and more vital things that 
Scott Nearing spoke. He told of the wrongs and 
sufferings of the world of labor, and exposed the or- 
ganized crime of its oppressors. With uncontroverti- 
ble facts and figures and irresistible logic he arraigned 
the ruling classes of all countries as the authors re- 
sponsible for the ruin of Europe and the misery of the 
world. He spoke of the aspirations and ideals of the 
submerged masses of the people everywhere, and of 
their determined struggles to redeem mankind from 
the age-long horrors of oppression and slaughter. He 
expounded the gospel of International Socialism under 
the solemn sanction of the formal oath and under the 
partial guidance of the prosecuting attorney and the 
presiding judge. He proved the red creed of human 



brotherhood in accordance with all the technical re- 
quirements of legal procedure. 

The trial of Scott Nearing was but one of many 
similar performances enacted in the courts of the 
United States during the war and — after it. The trials 
of Eugene V. Debs, Rose Pastor Stokes and Kate 
Richards O'Hare; of Victor Berger, Adolph Germer 
and other officials of the Socialist Party; of Max 
Eastman and his co-workers on the staff of the 
"Masses" ; the wholesale trials of the I. W. W. leaders, 
were all in principle identical with that of Scott Near- 
ing, and it was largely fortuitous that the latter was 
acquitted, while all the former were convicted and 
sentenced to savagely heavy prison terms. 

Not a single enemy agent was convicted under the 
provisions of the so-called Espionage Law, which was 
ostensibly enacted to cope with the operations of the 
German spy system in the United States during the 
war, but more than one thousand prosecutions were 
initiated under that act against radicals ahd pacifists. 
And yet Thomas W. Gregory, the U. S. Attorney 
General responsible for the prosecutions, solemnly and 
seriously asserts that the persons so tried and con- 
victed are "in no sense political prisoners." If the 
term "political prisoner" as distinguished from the 
common criminal convict denotes a person jailed for 
the offense of holding and expressing political, social 
or economic views opposed to those of the party in 
control or classes in power, then the numerous persons 
convicted individually and "en bloc" in political, eco- 
nomic and religious groups, under the Espionage Law 
and now held in federal prisons, are beyond cavil and 
quibble political prisoners, and the prosecutions insti- 
tuted under that act were and are political trials. 

To judge from all indications these trials are only 
the harbingers of an era of systematic governmental 

4 



persecution of all radical opinion and radical move- 
ments in the United States. Even before the sinister 
Espionage Law has ceased to serve its purpose, new 
laws, more candid and more drastic are proposed in 
order to stifle the voice of the rising working class 
rebellion, and where there is no convenient statute to 
cover the persecution of radical dissenters with even 
the most flimsy cloak of legality, our authorities na- 
tional and local, have shown little hesitancy in sub- 
stituting arbitrary might for legal warrant. In the 
capitalist Soviets of America the dictature of the 
bourgeoisie reigns supreme. 

The era of wholesale and relentless persecution is 
neither unexpected nor entirely unwelcome to the 
Socialists of the United States. It is an unavoidable 
phase of historic development through .which the 
Socialist movement of every advanced country has had 
to pass. It marks a point in the growth of the pro- 
letarian sentiment of revolt which strikes the ruling 
classes mad with fear and drives them to unreasoned 
and frantic efforts to strangle an irresistible social and 
intellectual tide by sheer brute force and physical vio- 
lence. Such persecutions eventually collapse in the 
inevitable reaction which they are bound to produce 
against their own excesses. Their effect on the So- 
cialist movement is of infinite value in purifying, uni- 
fying and extending the movement. 

It is only a few decades since the government of the 
autocrat of all Russia afforded the young and ideal- 
istic Socialist propagandists of his empire the oppor- 
tunity to preach the gospel of the Social revolution 
through the medium of the famous political mass trials 
of the seventies of the last century, and since he 
adopted the policy of "crushing" Socialism by hanging, 
exiling and imprisoning the Socialists. 

It is barely a generation since the German Imperial 



Government under the leadership of the Iron Chan- 
cellor inaugurated the twelve-year governmental cam- 
paign for the suppression of Socialist propaganda 
through the action of the courts and of the police. 

Today the Romanoffs and the Hohenzollerns have 
been swept into oblivion and their political, industrial 
and military junkers shorn of their power. In Russia 
the proletariat governs, and in Germany the contest 
for the control of the former Empire lies solely be- 
tween the Socialists of the different schools. 

And now it is capitalist America that is undertaking 
the hazardous task of destroying Socialism by force, 
plunging into the adventure with all the enthusiasm of 
boundless ignorance, with all the ruthlessness of 
blinded hate and with defiant heedlessness of the 
warnings of the past. 

Verily the rulers can never learn the lessons of 
history. 

MORRIS HILLQUIT. 



Saranac Lake, March 12, 1919. 



The Indictment 

Scott Nearing and the American Socialist Society were 
indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the District Court 
of the United States for the Southern District of New 
York in April, 1918. They were not tried until Feb- 
ruary, 1919. The indictment contained four counts. 
The first count charged that, while the United States 
was at war with the Imperial German Government, 
the defendants unlawfully conspired to violate the 
provisions of Section 3 of Title 1 of the act of Con- 
gress, approved on June 15th, 1917, commonly known 
as the Espionage Law, by unlawfully agreeing to 
cause and attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, 
mutiny and refusal of duty in the military and naval 
forces of the United States through the publication 
of the pamphlet known as "The Great Madness." The 
second count of the indictment charged that the de- 
fendants conspired unlawfully and wilfully to obstruct 
the recruiting and enlistment service of the United 
States by the publication of said pamphlet. The third 
count charged the defendants with attempting to cause 
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny and refusal of duty 
in the military and naval forces of the United States 
by the publication of the said pamphlet. And the 
fourth count charged the defendants with unlawfully 
obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service of 
the United States by the publication of the pamphlet. 



The Jury 



Thursday morning, February 6th, found the Federal 
court room on the third floor of the old Post Office 
Building filled with the talesmen from among whom 
the Jury was to be selected. The members of the tale 
were characteristic jurors; men of the type that have 
been trying Espionage Act cases all over the United 
States. 

They were for the most part old, retired, comfort- 
able men, — men who had been well treated by life. 
Most of them had struggled, but successfully. They 
had won out in the brutal melee of industrialism and 
by rising from its depths they had escaped many of 
its worst consequences. 

Thirty talesmen in all were examined in picking the 
jury. The first was about 70 years of age; the second 
about 55 ; the third about 50 ; and the fourth about 65 ; 
the fifth gave his age as 38; the sixth gave his as 55; 
the seventh was about the same age; the eighth gave 
his age as 59 ; the ninth stated his age as 38 ; the tenth 
as 65 ; the eleventh as 60. These men were typical 
as far as one could judge of the entire panel. 

Most of the talesmen were foreign born and the 
group contained a surprisingly large proportion of 
Germans and Austrians. Among the first thirteen 
talesmen examined seven were born in Germany or 
in Austria. One of the talesmen came from Posen ; 
another from Scotland; a third from Berlin. 

The talesmen examined were business men — active 
and retired. Not a single wage-earner appeared 
among the first thirty names drawn. The first tales- 
man examined was a real estate dealer; the second 



was a corporation official ; the third was a diamond 
merchant; the fourth a retired merchant; the fifth a 
steel contractor; the sixth a repairer of organs; the 
seventh a retired grocer ; the eighth, retired ; the ninth, 
a corporation official; the tenth, a retired merchant; 
the eleventh, a retired jobber in foreign merchandise; 
the twelfth, a real estate man ; the thirteenth, a manu- 
facturer of laces and embroidery; the fourteenth, an 
electrical jobber; the fifteenth, a retired contractor. 
The list ran on in this way throughout the entire 
thirty. 

All of the talesmen, except two, expressed an utter 
ignorance of Socialism and displayed a disinclination 
to political action, which was truly astonishing. 
Talesman Number 1, born in Scotland, stated that he 
had "never voted in his life." Others voted but took 
no interest in politics. A few were able to name the 
candidates at the last election. 

Most of the talesmen examined had heard of Social- 
ism. One of them had read a dozen copies of the New 
York Call. One or two of them had read, casually, 
articles or books on Socialism. The member of the 
tale who had read the Call on various occasions was 
challenged by the Prosecution, which apparently re- 
garded him as unfitted to sit on such a case. 

Every member of the tale who was examined, stated 
that he favored the entrance of the United States into 
the war. All of the members were likewise in favor 
of conscription as a method of raising an army, al- 
though one or two were not particularly enthusiastic 
on the subject of the draft. One answered that he was 
in favor of conscription, but added "I don't believe 
in having anything to do with it myself." Another 
one stated, "As long as no one wanted to enlist that 
was the only way to raise an army." Barring such 
slight expressions of opinion, the sentiment of the Jury 

10 



on this subject was unanimous. 

After two days during which thirty persons were 
examined the Jury was completed. It was constituted 
as follows : 

1. Irving D. Zimmer, 55 years of age, born in New 
York; a salesman for malted extracts. Mr. Zimmer, 
who had a daughter in the service stated, "I would 
have liked to keep out of it (the war) if we could, but 
I did not see any way to keep out of it." He was "not 
interested" in politics. To the question, "Have you 
any near friends or relations, who happen to be Social- 
ists?" he answered "No." Mr. Zimmer stated that he 
owned some bonds. 

2. Stanley R. Ketchem, about 50 years of age ; was 
born in the United States. He was officially connected 
with the Lackawanna-Wyoming Transit Co., the 
Carolina-Tennessee Power Co., the Caroline Construc- 
tion Co., the Union Metallurgical Co. 

3. Gustave Gumpertz, retired, was formerly a man- 
ufacturer of clothing. He had been retired for three 
years. One of his sons had volunteered for the ser- 
vice. Mr. Gumpertz was born in Alsace. He had 
been in the United States for over 60 years. 

4. Joseph Hecht, a steel contractor, 38 years of age, 
had been associated with the National Iron and Steel 
Co., for fifteen years. His company had had some war 
contracts. Mr. Hecht was born in Austria, and stated 
that he had read nothing on Socialism. 

5. Samuel R. Welser, retired, was formerly a con- 
tractor for electrical and metal work. Mr. Welser was 
American born of American parents, and had lived in 
New York for 40 years. He was about 60 years of 
age. Asked about his property holdings, he replied 
that he owned some stock. Asked whether they were 
war stocks, he replied, that "there has been no increase 
in dividends." During the war he was an active 

11 



worker in the Red Cross. 

6. William Edebohls, a retired grocer, born in Ger- 
many, had been in the United States for over 40 years. 
Mr. Edebohls was about 60 years of age. When asked 
about the declaration of war he answered, "At the 
time I did not think anything of it." A son was work- 
ing in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Like the other mem- 
bers of the panel, he had read little or nothing about 
Socialism. 

7. Sam Gordon, an importer and exporter of mer- 
chandise, born in Russia and about 55 years of age. 
When asked as to his reading, Mr. Gordon promptly 
replied, "The Times and the Journal of Commerce. " 

8. Alfred W. Trotter, a civil and construction 
engineer for more than 40 years ; president of a build- 
ing company; born in the United States; 63 years of 
age. Mr. Trotter was a veteran of the Seventh Regi- 
ment; had read very little about Socialism, but pro- 
fessed an interest in it. He stated it as his opinion 
that Socialism would not work "because it was against 
human nature." He added, that he would be inter- 
ested to hear an exposition of the Socialist philosophy. 

9. Solomon Marcus, a retired merchant; 65 years 
of age ; born in Russia ; had been in the United States 
since 1868. When asked as to his reading he answered, 
"I don't read books." -w 

10. Albert W. Walburn, retired, was president and 
treasurer of a foundry and machine shop; about 60 
years of age. Mr. Walburn read the Tribune and the 
Post regularly. He was interested in Socialism in a 
casual way and had read one of Waiting's books. He 
could not remember the title. He was the only mem- 
ber of the Jury who stated that he had read a book on 
the subject of Socialism. Mr Walburn was born in 
Pennsylvania and acted as a draft board registrar dur- 
ing the war. 

12 



11. Isaac Anhalt, a diamond broker of about 50 
years of age. He had read nothing about Socialism ; 
was* interested in the war and believed in conscription. 
Mr. Anhalt was of German birth. 

12. P. R. De Bracke, secretary of a chemical cor- 
poration and stockholder of the same corporation. 
Mr. De Bracke was born in Paris, and knew "very 
little" about Socialism. In answer to the question, 
"Have you any Socialist friends ?" he replied, "No." 
Mr. De Bracke stated his age as 38. 



1-3 



The Government's Case 

MR. BARNES: May it please your Honor, Mr. 
Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, . . . the real issue 
that you have to decide is not whether these defend- 
ants are right in their economic theories, or whether 
they are wrong. It does not make any difference. 
The question is whether what they did was done with 
a purpose which the law forbids. 

This indictment was filed in the month of May, 
1918, and brought, as are all indictments, by the grand 
jury of the United States District Court. It is founded 
upon one of the great war statutes that were enacted 
by Congress shortly after the entrance of this country 
into the war. It is filed upon a statute which is popu- 
larly known as the Espionage Act, and which among 
other things was enacted by Congress for the purpose 
of insuring a successful raising of an army, and for 
the purpose of preventing any obstruction, or any 
effort made to impair the loyalty or the obedience or 
the discipline of the army, or to demoralize it in any 
way, shape or form. 

On April 6, 1917, you will recall, Congress declared 
that a state of war existed between this country and 
Germany, and thereafter it took certain steps to insure 
not only the vigorous prosecution of that war, but a 
successful termination. 

The first thing needed after a war is declared is 
money. The next thing is men. The next thing, of 
course, is ships and equipment. 

As you will recall, immediately after the war was 
declared, provisions were made for raising money, 
and the first Liberty loan was authorized, and then 

14 



in the middle of May, 1917, was passed the act known 
as the Selective Service Act, also commonly called 
the Conscription Act, although the act is more prop- 
erly designated as a selective service act than as a 
conscription act, and that act provided two ways for 
raising an army, one by the process of selective ser- 
vice, the taking of those men who could be spared, 
between the ages of 21 and 30, and the other way, 
and a way, however, which it is very important for 
you to bear in mind in this case, was for the raising of 
an army by voluntary enlistment, by taking men who 
did not wait for the draft, but men who voluntarily 
came forward to offer their services, and their lives, if 
necessary, for the prosecution of the war. 

That was May, 1917, that that law was passed, May 
18, the law authorizing the raising of the army. On 
June 15, 1917, there was passed the Espionage Act, 
the act which we have to consider in this prosecution. 
That act is the one upon which this indictment is 
based. 

The persons against whom this indictment is found 
are two, one of them a natural person, like you and I, 
and the other a corporation. So that while we see at 
the defendants' table here only one person in the flesh, 
you must remember always there is on trial here be- 
fore you a corporeal body, an organization created by 
the laws of the State of New York, which has been 
indicted, and which has duly pleaded, and which is 
duly represented by counsel. 

The individual is Mr. Scott Nearing, a gentleman 
who has been a member of the faculty of the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, and of Toledo. He has been 
a lecturer and a writer upon economic subjects. 

The corporation is The American Socialist Society, 
and that is not to be confused with the Socialist Party, 
which is a political organization, although we shall 

15 



show you that no one may be a member of The Amer- 
ican Socialist Society, this defendant, unless he is a 
believer in the general doctrines of the Socialist Party. 

This corporation runs, among its activities, a school 
called The Rand School of Social Science, which oc- 
cupies a building on 15th Street in this City, which I 
believe is called the People's Home, and this school is 
devoted, among other things, to the teaching and pro- 
pagation of the theories of the socialist movement. 

So please remember now and at all times that there 
is before you on trial two persons — one the individual 
and the other the corporation. 

The sections or provisions of the Espionage Act 
upon which this indictment is based are Sections 3 and 
4, and the first title, and the material parts of those 
sections which are concerned in this prosecution are 
as follows: 

"Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall 
wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, 
disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty in the military 
or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully 
obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the 
United States, to the injury of the service, or of the 
United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more 
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty 
years, or both." 

And this Section 4 provides that if two or more 
persons conspire to violate the provisions of Sections 
2 and 3 of this title, and what I just read to you was 
in Section 3, and one or more of such persons does 
any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of 
the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in 
said sections provided. 

In other words, there are two offenses made by the 
statute, or three, practically, that we are here con- 
cerned with. 

16 



One is the attempt to cause disloyalty, insubordina- 
tion, mutiny or refusal of duty in the military or the 
naval forces of the country. 

The second is obstructing the recruiting or enlist- 
ment service of the United States, and the third is 
conspiring to effect those objects. 

You will notice that the penalty is one of very wide 
scope. It is a punishment and a fine of not more than 
$10,(300. In other words, the fine may be imposed 
from one dollar up to the limit of $10,000, or imprison- 
ment for not more than twenty years. In other w r ords, 
if a verdict of guilty should be found, the court would 
have the discretion to impose a sentence of from one 
day in the custody of the Marshal up to as high as 
twenty years. 

This charge in this case concerns itself with the 
publication, the writing, and the distribution of a 
pamphlet consisting of some 44 pages called "The 
Great Madness. A Victory for the American Plu- 
tocracy." 

It is claimed by the Government, and I think will 
be conceded, that Mr. Scott Nearing is the author of 
the pamphlet, and that it was published by and dis- 
tributed by The Rand School of Social Science, which, 
as I have pointed out, was an activity of the defendant, 
The American Socialist Society. 

The Government claims that when Mr. Nearing and 
The Rand School collaborated in the writing and the 
publication and the distribution of this pamphlet, that 
they were acting together in a concerted plan to effect 
a particular purpose. That is, they were both acting 
together in concert, the one to write, the other to 
publish and distribute. 

The Government claims that this pamphlet was an 
obstruction to the recruiting and enlistment service of 
the United States, and that it was published and dis- 

17 



tributed, with the intention, in the minds of Mr. Near- 
ing and of the Society, if the Society may have a mind 
— but it was done with the intention of obstructing 
the recruiting and enlistment service of the United 
States, and with the intention of creating among our 
soldiers a spirit of disloyalty and insubordination 
sufficient to amount to an attempt, practically, to cause 
disloyalty and insubordination and refusal of duty 
among our soldiers. 

Now, by obstruction, as I understand the law, we 
do not mean necessarily the successful obstruction — 
we do not mean necessarily that any one man read this 
book and decided that he would not obey the draft, 
or that he would not enlist. It is not necessary, it is 
not practicable for the Government to go out and find 
men who would come here on the stand and say, "Yes, 
I read this particular book, and it persuaded me not to 
enlist," or "It persuaded me to attempt to evade the 
draft," or "It persuaded me not to register for the 
draft." 

And by recruiting and enlistment service, we do not 
mean exclusively the draft, but we mean all those 
agencies of the Government which are used and em- 
ployed in getting men to go into the army. 

The Government will claim that the recruiting and 
enlistment service embraces the appeal to the heart 
that every citizen has, the feeling that every citizen 
has, to fly to the defense of his country, and to enter 
its service, and to give his all for the successful prose- 
cution of a war, when it once has declared that war. 

In other words, the recruiting and enlistment ser- 
vice is everything, practically, that we have, both the 
organized and instinctive natural appeal to men who 
are citizens of a country to rally to its defense, to rally 
to its colors, and to take their part in accomplishing 
the objects for which it enters a war. 

18 



It will be claimed by the government that this 
pamphlet is an obstruction of those appeals, and that 
it was designed and intended to dull the enthusiasm, 
and that it was designed and purposed and intended 
to persuade its readers that this was not a war for 
which they should be prepared to offer their services 
to the government. That it was a war which did not 
concern them, a war in which their own true interests 
would be best consulted by keeping out of, themselves. 

It is that sort of an obstruction to the recruiting 
and enlistment service that the Government will con- 
tend was caused by the particular pamphlet. 

It will also be claimed and we will attempt to show 
that from the statements and the arguments in this 
pamphlet, distributed as it was at a time when the 
draft was in course of operation ; at a time when you 
would meet your neighbor on the street in civilian 
clothes, and he would tell you he had registered, and 
he expected to be called shortly — it was distributed at 
that time, that it was intended to cause those people 
when they became soldiers to be disloyal and insub- 
ordinate, and that the statements therein contained 
are calculated — that statements of that character are 
calculated to make soldiers who would not be the loyal 
and brave men that we wanted and that Congress 
wanted in the army. 

It is not contended by the Government that there 
was any formal meeting between Mr. Nearing and the 
directors of the American Socialist Society, ^t which 
a resolution was passed that they would formally con- 
spire together to obstruct the raising of the army and 
so forth. It is claimed, though, that they were work- 
ing together with a common object, using a common 
means to accomplish this end, which Congress has 
made a crime. 

Now, we will show that the pamphlet was written 

19 



by Mr. Nearing in the summer of 1917, after war had 
been declared, and after the Selective Service Act was 
passed, and after the Espionage Act was passed. 

We will prove that there were two editions pub- 
lished, each edition consisting of ten thousand copies, 
and that it was distributed all over the United States 
by the Rand School of Social Science, through its book 
store called the Rand Book Store, which it maintained. 

The hardest point always in any case of this kind is 
proving the intent, proving what is in the mind of a 
man when he does a particular act. That, of course, 
as you can see, is something that is not capable of 
photographic proof. We have no means yet of taking 
a photograph of a man's mind to determine just what 
he intended when he did a thing, so we have to resort 
to certain rules, and certain lines of evidence which 
will be resorted to in this case. 

First, the ordinary rule that a man is presumed to 
intend natural ordinary and reasonable consequences 
of what he says and does. 

Then we may look at and we will look at other 
statements, other publications made by these defend- 
ants at or about the time that this pamphlet was being 
published and distributed, because that may give us a 
line on what they had in mind at the time they were 
doing this — their other activities. 

Then we shall endeavor to show the fact that Mr. 
Nearing and the defendant, The American Socialist 
Society ,^t this time were acting under the inspiration 
of a declaration of a war policy adopted at a convention 
of the Socialist Party held in St. Louis in April, 1917, 
and ratified thereafter by a referendum of the party. 

We have asked and you have heard a great many 
questions of you gentlemen with regard to socialism 
and socialists. Now, of course, you understand no- 
body is being prosecuted because he is a Socialist. 

20 



That would be abhorent to our Constitution, and to 
our conception of justice, to yours and to mine or to 
anyone's, but we are interested in the belief and doc- 
trine of these people and the acceptance of the Socialist 
principles, if it throws any light upon what they in- 
tended at the time they printed and distributed this 
pamphlet, and it is for that reason that we shall look 
at what was the well defined or the defined and ac- 
cepted war policy of the Socialist Party, by reason of 
the fact that these people are Socialists, and that they 
did accept it. 

We will show you that Mr. Nearing became an en- 
rolled Socialist in the month of July, 1917, whereas 
this war platform was adopted, the majority report — 
in April, 1917, and that Mr. Nearing then became a 
Socialist, and we shall show you that the two of the 
committee that adopted this particular war platform, 
were directors of The American Socialist Society. 

So that w r e will then feel that we are entitled to look 
at this war platform to see what it pledges the Socialist 
Party to do in connection with the war, as throwing 
light upon what Mr. Nearing and the American Social- 
ist Society had in mind when they did make this pub- 
lication. 

Now, Mr. Stedman, of course, has very properly said 
to you that because a man is opposed to a tariff, you 
do not necessarily believe that a man is a smuggler, 
and because a man is opposed to national prohibition, 
you do not brand him as running a blind pig. 

MR. STEDMAN: Now, you see, Judge, they do 
know that term here. Even the District Attorney 
knows it. 

THE COURT: He learned it from you. 

MR. BARNES : I thought when you first used the 
term "blind pig", that that was a term of opprobrium 
for capitalists. 



MR. STEDMAN: We have better ones than that 
for capitalists. 

MR. BARNES : But, gentlemen, if you find a man 
who says he is opposed to any protective tariff, and 
will never pay a penny of duty, and then you catch 
him walking through the Customs House with his 
pockets full of diamonds, you are entitled then to look 
back at his activities to give you light as to whether 
or not he intended to smuggle, or whether he denied 
he had diamonds in his pocket, and so with the blind 
pig, if you have a man who says that national prohibi- 
tion is an outrage upon the rights of individuals, and 
the rights of free men, and that he won't stand for it, 
and he will oppose it, and then you thereafter see him 
placing a twenty-cent piece right over a place where 
there is a separate section or a compartment, you have 
a right then to think, or to take into consideration his 
declaration with regard to prohibition, so as to deter- 
mine the question whether he is trying to get a drink, 
or whether he is merely trying to buy some cigars. 

Gentlemen, something has been said about a fair 
trial. We want a fair trial here. Mr. Stedman has 
told you very truly that we are all a part of the Gov- 
ernment; I am a part of the Government, and he is a 
part of the Government, and it is tremendously im- 
portant to us all that we give fair trials to everybody. 
He has told you the District Attorney does not want 
innocent people convicted, and he is right, we do not, 
and we are going to try to present the case just as 
fairly as it is possible to present it, and to appeal to 
your reason, and to appeal to your understanding, but, 
gentlemen, when they ask for a fair trial for the de- 
fendants, do not forget also that we are entitled to a 
fair trial for the government. 

We are entitled to your best judgment, and that is 
all we want. That is all we ask for, and we are en- 

22 



titled to that. We are entitled to a judgment in which 
sympathy shall not play any part, and we are entitled 
to a judgment in which the feeling, "Oh, well, the war 
is over," shall not play any part, and both sides, both 
the Government and the defendants, are entitled to 
your attention, and I am sure they will get it, every 
moment of the trial, and I know that we will have your 
very best efforts to give us a just verdict. 



23 



Scott Nearing's Direct 
Testimony 

Q. What is your name? 

A. Scott Nearing. 

Q. How old are you? 

A. 35. 

Q. Where were you born? 

A. Morris Run, Pennsylvania. 

Q. Your parents born in that state or were they 
born elsewhere? 

A. My father was born in New York and my 
mother in New Jersey. 

Q. Are you a man of German extraction? 

A. My mother's family were Polish, her name was 
Zabrisky; formerly it was Zabrouski, and my father's 
name was Dutch, the family name was Van Neering. 

Q. How long have they been in this country? 

A. Both families have been here for 200 years. 

Q. You are a married man? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any children? 

A. Two children. 

Q. Their ages? 

A. 4 and 6. 

Q. Where did you attend school first? 

A. I first attended school at Morris Run. 

Q. Before I go into that, what business was your 
father in? 

A. He is a broker. 

Q. Where? 

A. New York. 

24 



Q. What kind? 

A. Stock broker. 

Q. Now, have you any brothers? 

A. Two. 

Q. With reference to the army, will you state? 

A. I have one brother in France in Bordeaux at 
the present time and another brother who was in the 
army but has been dismissed or discharged. 

O. Volunteers? 

A. One volunteered and one was conscripted. 

Q. You and your family are on good terms not- 
withstanding your views on economics? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Will you state your general course of study and 
work please? 

A. I have attended school at Morris Run, Pennsyl- 
vania, at Philadelphia, in the elementary grades, in 
High School ; I attended the Temple University, the 
University of Pennsylvania, academic course, and the 
University of Pennsylvania graduate school. 

Q. That finished your career as a student in the 
schools or being a pupil in the schools? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What line of work or endeavor did you take up 
then? 

A. I was secretary of the Pennsylvania Child Labor 
Committee from 1905 to 1907. 

Q. How was that committee constituted? 

A. It was a volunteer society of mostly political 
people, liberals, I suppose, who were interested in the 
child labor problem in Pennsylvania. At that time 
Pennsylvania was the second largest manufacturing 
state in the country and we had more working children 
in Pennsylvania than in any other state in the United 
States: in the mines and in the silk mills and in the 
textile factories and the glass houses, particularly. 

25 



At that time the age of child labor in Pennsylvania 
was 13 and there was a very vigorous campaign to 
arouse public sentiment to raise the age to 14 for day 
work and 16 for night work. I was secretary of that 
volunteer committee that was busy with that campaign. 

Q. How long did you serve in that capacity? 
. A. Two years. 

O. Following that, what? 

A. Following that I became a teacher in the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania. 

Q. What did you teach there? 

A. I taught economics and sociology. 

Q. How long did you continue in the university as 
a teacher? 

A. Nine years. During that same time I taught 
three classes a week at Swarthmore College from about 
1908 until about 1912. 

Q. Did you write any books at that time? 

A. A number, yes. 

Q. Can you give us the names of some of them? 

A. The first one was a book on economics which 
was called "Elements of Economics" ; and I wrote that 
in collaboration between myself and one of my fellow 
instructors, F. D. Watson, who is now professor of 
sociology and economics at Haverford. 

The second book was my doctor's thesis, called 
"Social Adjustment." 

The third one was based on my experiences with the 
Pennsylvania Child Labor Committee. 

Q. Coming to the first one, did that have a general 
circulation ? 

A. No, it was a text book, and used in colleges and 
used to some extent in more advanced high school 
classes. 

Q. In what state? 

A. Well, I cannot tell you as to what state. It was 

26 



published by The Macmillan Company and circulated 
throughout the country and in England because the 
Macmillan Company is an English firm, and the Amer- 
ican offices are the branch offices. 

Q. Did you write any other books while you were 
there? 

A. I mentioned "Social Adjustment." That was 
my doctor's thesis. That was also published by the 
Macmillan Company. 

Then I wrote a book called "Solution of Child Labor 
Problems" that was based on my experiences with the 
Child Labor Committee. 

And then the next one I wrote was a book called 
"Social Religion. " That was an attempt to apply the 
principles which are laid down in "Social Adjust- 
ments" to the ethical or religious field. 

Then I wrote another book called "Social Sanity." 
Which was an attempt to show that changes are 
bound to occur and that if we are wise and foresighted, 
and if we understand what is coming they can occur 
sanely and intelligently and constructively; but that 
if we are stupid and bigoted and refuse to see what is 
coming, the changes may overtake and wreck our 
civilization. 

I tried to point out that the ruling class in society, 
the people in charge and in control of any society 
would do well to realize that progress is bound to be 
made and would do well to study the problems of 
progress and see that they were sane rather than the 
chaotic progress. Changes will come anyway and the 
question is whether they will come wisely or insanely. 

Then this little book published by B. W. 
Huebsch, called "The Super Race." That is a study 
in the improvement of race standards, or improvement 
of our racial stock. It is an attempt to show that peo- 
ple can be better born if they exercise the wiser pro- 

27 



visions, that we can become a better racial stock to 
begin with. 

Then the fourth book is one called "The New Edu- 
cation" ; and that was a book written and describing 
some of the most promising educational experiments 
that were being carried on in the United States at that 
time. 

I traveled all over the country and studied all of the 
most progressive school systems and I wrote out a 
series of chapters or articles — they were both — con- 
cerning the new work that was being done in educa- 
tion. 

Then there was another series of five books, the 
first one: "Wages in the United States." That was 
an attempt to show what wages were being paid in 
the United States and it was the first attempt, so far 
as I know in the country, to study wages. 

That was published in 1914. It was the first at- 
tempt by any other than governmental authority 
to study wages ; and the most astonishing thing about 
the book, about the study, was the smallness of the 
wages that were paid. The great majority of the 
working people at that time got less than a decent 
wage, nine-tenths of the men got less than $1,000 and 
nine-tenths of the women got less than $600 a year. 
And that held true both of the railroads, industries and 
factories, all up through the line of industry at that 
time. 

That was the first of a series of five books dealing 
with the question as to the income of the country as 
it was at that time. 

The second was a book called "Financing the Wage 
Earner's Family" ; and that was a study of our stand- 
ards of living. The study of wages was an attempt 
to show how much the people got, and this study was 
an attempt to show how much they needed in order to 

28 



maintain physical health and social decency. 

The conclusion from this study was that the ma- 
jority of workers, both men and women, at that time, 
1915, were getting less than a decent wage; that is 
less than a wage which would enable them to maintain 
physical health and social decency. 

The third book in that series was a book called : 
"Reducing the Cost of Living." That was an attempt 
to show that even where men were getting compara- 
tively good wages, their income was being cut down 
by the increased higher prices. 

This book was an attempt to indicate some of the 
possible remedies for the high cost of living. 

The fourth book in that series was a book called : 
"Income. " That w T as a study of the whole question of 
income and as to how it was divided up between wage 
earners and property owners. I tried to make one of 
the points in that book which is one of the well known 
points in the socialist doctrine, that there were only 
two sources of income, or from which income can be 
derived : 

A man is paid because he works, as a man who works 
on a railroad ; and a man is paid because he owns, as a 
man who owns stocks and bonds in a railroad, and who 
did nothing actively himself to give him that income. 
And I tried to work out, using the word "income," to 
see how it was divided between the two classes. 

Q. Do you use it in illustration of a man who 
worked on a railroad. Do you confine that to manual 
w T ork ? 

A. Anybody that performs a social service, that 
includes the president and everybody else on a railroad. 

Q. In other words, your definition of work includes 
the service rendered by the president, the manager 
and by all who perform a service in the operation of 
the enterprise, whether managerial or otherwise? 

29 



* / j -v. 

A. Yes, who perform ^fo|y useful service, social ser- 
vice; that includes also the man who plays the violin 
and writes good poetry. 

Q. (By Mr. Barnes) : Does that include the lawyer? 

MR. STEDMAN : I hope not. 

A. And the fifth book in that series was a book 
called "Anthracite," which was a study of the anthra- 
cite coal industry, in which I attempted to show by one 
industry what I have been trying to show was common 
to all others. I took up the matter of wages of a man 
located in that region and in that industry, what is the 
income from the anthracite coal industry and tried to 
arrive at a conclusion as to the contention between the 
miners and the operators and the general public, and 
the conclusion was that the operators, the owners of 
the mines, ten operating railroad companies which 
owned over 96 per cent of the mines and wherever 
there was an increase in wages which had been grant- 
ed, it had been more than offset by the increase in the 
cost of living; and the increase in wages was shoved 
over by the operators in the form of increased prices 
to the consumers; and while the operator made more 
in dividends and the labor got some more in money 
wages, the consumer always footed the bill. 

And the last book was a book called "Poverty and 
Riches," which was a book in which I attempted to 
describe the results of our industrial system; the re- 
sults on a man who worked and the results on the 
owner, the results in the form of poverty, the results 
in the form of riches; and then I have a chapter on 
industrial democracy. 

That includes about all of them except a number of 
pamphlets, about a half a dozen pamphlets. 

Q. Will you name those? 

A. "Work and Pay," "The Coal Question," "The 
Menace of Militarism," "The Germs of War," "The 

30 



Great Madness." I think that is all. 

Q. How long did you serve in the University of 
Pennsylvania? 

A. Nine years. 

O. When did you discontinue? 

A. 1915, June 1915. 

Q. In just a short way, what were the circum- 
stances of the termination of your services? 

A. Why 

MR. BARNES : I do not think that we want to go 
into Mr. Nearing's trouble with the university at that 
time. 

THE COURT : I don't think so either. 

MR. BARNES: We will concede he left the uni- 
versity. 

THE COURT: He can say there was a difference 
of opinion between him and the trustees. 

MR. STEDMAN : I want to bring it out so they 
would not think he rifled the treasury or anything of 
that sort. 

Q. Where did you go from there? 

A. University of Toledo. 

Q. How long were you there? 

A. Two years. 

Q. Did you resign from the Toledo University? 

A. I resigned, and my resignation was rejected, and 
then the trustees "fired" me. 

THE COURT: Is that an academic university? 

THE WITNESS : The University of Toledo is a 
municipal university. The University of Pennsylvania 
was a state — well, a semi-state university. The Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania had an appropriation of about 
a million dollars a year from the state legislature, and 
the University of Toledo was a different university, it 
was maintained entirely by what you people here refer 
to as the Board of Aldermen, and there it was called 

31 



the City Council. 

The University of Pennsylvania had a board of 23 
trustees, who were self-perpetuating, that is they 
elected their own successors. 

Q. That is the Board as to the University of Penn- 
sylvania ? 

A. Yes, and as to the University of Toledo, the 
members were appointed by the mayor and confirmed 
by the city council, so that the University of Toledo 
was a much more democratic institution than the in- 
stitution of Pennsylvania. 

Q. Had you, prior to disassociating yourself or 
having yourself disassociated from the Toledo Uni- 
versity, given any addresses in reference to the war? 

A. Quite a number. 

Q. Will you state in just a terse way what was 
the theory of your addresses on the subject of war? 

A. The theory of my addresses on the subject was 
the same as the theory that I had been working out 
for a number of years. 

When I went into the University I didn't have any 
particular economic point of view. After two years 
with the Pennsylvania Child Labor Committee I be- 
came convinced of certain facts, and the foremost of 
those was that under the present system the rule of 
procedure is : "Let him take who has the power and 
let him take who can," and "every man for himself, 
and the devil take the last fellow." 

Because in Pennsylvania, without any sense of 
apology, the manufacturers, the miners, put youngsters 
into their factories and mines who had no business to 
work and ought to be in school, little boys and little 
girls, and then proceeded to make profits out of them ; 
and when we went to the legislature to try to get laws 
keeping children under 14 out of mines and factories — 

MR. BARNES: I don't like to interrupt on this 

32 



line, but we are not interested in the child labor ques- 
tion here, and I have no objection to the witness stat- 
ing his views ; but I don't think he should detail all the 
work that he did and the fight that was had in Penn- 
sylvania, all of it. 

THE COURT: I quite agree with you. 

MR. BARNES : All of us sympathize with the child 
labor movement. 

MR. STEDMAN : All sympathize but we don't do 
much ; that is the difference. 

Q. Will you cut it right over to your addresses on 
the war issue and take it from there if you can? 

A. I think it was in the Fall of 1916 I delivered a 
series of speeches on preparedness. At that time the 
President had made a swing around the country and 
he said that if those who disagreed with him had any 
public sentiment on the other side, they should hire a 
big hall and go out and get crowds. So we hired some 
big halls and we went out and got big crowds in all 
the cities, or most of the cities where he had spoken. 

And during the series of addresses I made a talk on 
the germs of war, and I afterward published that 
speech in a pamphlet of the same title that was pub- 
lished by a concern in St. Louis, I think in the late Fall 
of 1916. Do you want me to tell what the theory 
behind that is? 

Q. Yes, you have now characterized your addresses, 
and I want the theory that ran through them. 

A. Well, the theory behind it, behind the "Germs 
of War" was this: 

That if a town was threatened by typhoid fever the 
first thing you would want to know was what the 
origin of the germs was, and having discovered the 
origin or source of the difficulty, you would proceed to 
correct it from the bottom up. 

The war is a social disease, the most deadly of all 

33 



our social diseases and if you want to know how to 
stop war you have got to go to the bottom of the 
thing and reach down to the germs or origin of war. 

And then I took up the question of the origins of 
war as it is taken up by Hobson in his "Imperialism" 
and by F. C. Howe in his "Why War," or by H. N. 
Brailsford in his "War of Steel and Gold." 

I took up this theory, that in the modern economic 
world there have been three important stages: 

In the first place there was the stage when nations 
reached out for colonies as Spain, Portugal, France 
and the like ; 

And then there was the stage when the nations 
reached out for markets, and that has been the stage 
of what we call capitalistic society. 

In the last 100 years or 150 years the great nations 
have been looking for markets, and they have had to 
look for markets because the workers, who produce 
the wealth, get less in wages than they produce in 
value, that is, if a worker produces five pairs of shoes, 
he gets two pairs or three pairs in wages. That is 
what we call a subsistence or a necessary wage, and 
then over and above that there will be a margin, and 
that margin goes to the capitalist in rent, interest, 
dividends and profits. 

Now the capitalist can use only a certain amount of 
that margin ; in the United States at the present time 
there are about 35,000 individuals who receive over 
$50,000 a year. 

If a man spends $10,000 a year under modern condi- 
tions he can live comfortably, he can have the comforts 
and simple luxuries of life. 

Now if a man lives comfortable under those circum- 
stances, he would have $40,000 left over. 

Now take the sixty-seven richest people in America 
having a total income of $300,000,000 and $298,600,000 

34 



of that is in the form of rent, interest, dividends and 
profits, and $1,400,000 is in the form of salaries and 
commissions. That is, there are salaries and commis- 
sions averaging $20,000 a year apiece. 

And over and above that, about 99 per cent of their 
income is in interest, rent, dividends and profits. 

Now that is the surplus over and above of what goes 
back to the worker in the form of wages. 

Now, I say if a man spends $10,000 or $15,000 on his 
living that is all that he can spend and he must spend 
the difference or at least put the difference in service 
in some other way. There are two ways that he can 
utilize it: 

He can invest it at home or he can invest it abroad. 
So long as there are investment opportunities at home, 
the capitalist, or the man who gets the surplus, invests 
that, we will say at home. When the time comes that 
he can no longer invest it at home he has got to send 
it abroad and that is what we mean by a search for 
foreign markets. In China and South America and 
portions of Africa there are unexploited resources : 
gold mines and iron mines and the like and franchises, 
trolley franchises and electric franchises, etc., and the 
capitalist in America or any other capitalistic country 
takes the surplus that has come to him and invests 
that surplus in South America or China or Africa or 
somewhere else. 

Ever since about the time of the Franco-Prussian 
war we have been engaged in sending abroad the eco- 
nomic surplus. That has been true of England, Bel- 
gium, France and Germany, and to a small extent Italy 
and since 1900 that has been true of the United States. 

Now, you take the investment field like that in Mex- 
ico, for example, around Tampico there are extensive 
oil properties and of course there are large interests 
in Mexico. 

35 



On the one hand there is the Standard Oil Interests 
and on the other hand the interests of S. Pierson & 
Company, the English oil trust, if you could call it so ; 
and these two interests both buy in Mexico oil lands 
and sometimes they come into conflict, the English 
Pound and the American Dollar both looking for the 
same oil well. 

In 1850, I think, Lord Palmerston, a British states- 
man, enunciated the doctrine that the flag follows the 
investor. The British Pound goes into Mexico and the 
American Dollar goes into Mexico, and the British 
flag follows the British Pound into Mexico and the 
United States flag follows the American investor into 
Mexico, and when the investor comes into conflict, 
why the flags come into conflict. 

And our theory, my theory, the socialist theory of 
modern wars is that whenever you get these com- 
mercial rivalries developed and established, the result 
is bound to be war. 

We have just seen an interesting illustration of that, 
probably all of us have been following the end of the 
war with great interest. The British called us in to 
help them win the war and we went in and helped them 
win the war and no sooner is the war over than they 
declare an embargo on 40 different American articles, 
and then in the United States Senate the day after, I 
think it was Senator Lewis rose up in his place and 
said "Let the British statesmen beware lest they re- 
awaken the spirit of 1812." 

And another senator, I think Senator Nelson, spoke 
up and said something about "bloody reprisal. " 

Now, we are supposed to be on good terms with 
Britain and Britain says "you cannot import articles 
into Britain." And the American senator says "We 
will make reprisals on Britain." And just as soon as 
you get that kind of an economic conflict started, you 

36 



have the germs of war. 

And our theory is that as long as you follow the dog 
eat dog philosophy in national or international affairs, 
so long you will have wars that will be based primarily 
upon the desires of commercial groups for aggrandize- 
ment. 

I have in my hand here an article written in 1915 
by Prof. E. R. A. Seligman, professor of economics of 
Columbia University. Professor Seligman has been, 
so far as I know throughout the whole controversy, a 
pro-war man, he is not a Socialist, he is an extremely 
conservative man and has been conservative and has 
taken the conservative position on the question of the 
science of economics throughout this work which is 
his specialty, and he has written a book called "Eco- 
nomic Interpretation of History" which is one of the 
standard works on that subject. 

Professor Seligman, as I say, is a pro-war conserva- 
tive. He says: 

"While economic conditions indeed do not by any 
means explain all national rivalry, they often illuminate 
the dark recesses of history and afford on the whole 
the most weighty and satisfactory interpretation of 
modern national contests which are not clearly refer- 
able to v purely racial antagonisms alone." 

Q. Let me ask you then, do you appreciate the fact 
that racial antagonisms have, or are in effect in war? 

A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. And also religion may affect it? 

A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. And what you mean is the economic determina- 
tion or principal factor in determining war? 

A. Yes, the economic conditions of life determine 
all the conditions of life. Just as roses and cabbages 
grow in the same dirt, in the garden, so racial antagon- 
isms and national antagonisms root back in the eco- 

37 



nomic life. We all have to eat and dress. 

Then Prof. Seligman in this article goes on and dis- 
cusses this particular war and he shows how economic 
factors have been at work, and then he says : 

"To say then that either Great Britain or Germany 
is responsible for the present war seems an unbeliev- 
able and curiously short-sighted view of the situation. 
Both countries know, all the countries of the world are 
subject to the sweep of these mighty forces over which 
they have but slight control, and by which they are 
one and all pushed on with an inevitable fatality." 

That is his thesis and that is the thesis of the Social- 
ist Party, although Prof. Seligman is by no means a 
socialist. 

I have here another statement interesting and cor- 
roborative of that point of view. This is some of the 
material on which I was working when the "Great 
Madness" was written and when the "Germs of War" 
was written. 

This is an excerpt from "Sea Power," a magazine 
published by the Navy League in September, 1916. 

This is the Navy League's creed : 

"The Navy League believes that most modern wars 
arise largely from our commercial rivalries. 

"2. That we are now seizing the world's trade. 

"3. That following the present war will come the 
most drastic commercial readjustments and the most 
dangerous rivalries ever known. 

"4. That the United States will be the storm center 
of these disturbances. 

"5. That consequently it is our duty to guard our- 
selves against these dangers while there is yet time." 

And then in another of their magazines, "The Seven 
Seas," another of their publications they say: 

"Since the days of the wars, in the name of the 
Prince of Peace, the battles between nations have ever 

38 



been with them directly or indirectly a question ot 
conquest." 

Q. Where is that from? 

A. That is from the Navy League, that is an 
organization of the largest business interests in the 
United States. 

The Navy League theory is like Prof. Seligman's 
theory and that is like the socialist theory. 

Q. And that is the theory which you had in mind, 
and which you were supporting in your "Great 
Madness?" 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you a copy of the "Germs of War" with 
you? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Will you now take up the portions of that 
which are distinguishable, in theory, from portions of 
"The Great Madness"? 

A. The fourth section of the "Germs of War" is 
headed "Treasonable Lying and War." 

"Before human nature can be sufficiently embittered and 
terrified to produce war between great nations, someone 
must do a great deal of missionary work. The people must 
be prepared for war. They must be appealed to, stirred up, 
exasperated, enraged, infuriated. 

"A thorough-going war spirit can be extracted from life 
only after years of steeping and simmering. Children are 
taught to hate. In their games they slaughter their foes — 
by name. Then school books teach them to hate, by dis- 
torting the facts of history and by misrepresenting their 
enemies. Their military drills and patriotic appeals teach 
them to hate, by making them believe that their country is 
the greatest, strongest country on earth, and their enemies' 
country is the weakest and meanest. Their churches teach 
them to hate by telling them that God is on their side, while 
their enemies are in league with the devil. 

"Thus steeped and schooled in hate, enthusiastic, patriotic 
and ignorant, they go out to wage war against oppression in 
the name of liberty. 

39 



"The United States is now in the midst of a campaign of 
misrepresentation, the like of which has never before been 
undertaken in the history of the country. For years, the 
American reading public has been treated to a flood of sys- 
tematic lying about Mexico. So serious did the situation 
become that the President of the United States was finally 
forced to issue a warning which was printed in the papers 
March 26, 1916. Among other things the President charged 
the great vested interests with a deliberate attempt to start 
a war with Mexico by circulating false news through this 
country. He said, "The object of this traffic in falsehood is 
obvious. It is to create intolerable friction between the 
Government of the United States and the de facto govern- 
ment of Mexico for the purpose of bringing about interven- 
tion in the interests of certain American owners of Mexican 
properties." 

"By way of further emphasis, the President added, 'The 
people of the United States should know the sinister and 
unscrupulous influences that are afoot, and should be on 
their guard against crediting any story coming from the 
border, and those who disseminate the news should make it 
a matter of patriotism and of conscience to test the source 
and authenticity of every report they receive from that 
quarter.' 

"Here is a deliberate statement made by the highest official 
in the United States, that certain of the great vested inter- 
ests are trying to stir up a war between the United States 
and Mexico, in order to safeguard their properties and in- 
crease their profits. 

"The New York Times comments on the President's 
statement in a way that indicates that the President would 
have been justified in issuing his warning at any time within 
the past six years. 

" 'It is well known/ says the Times on Sunday, March 
26th, 1916, 'that false reports about the hostility of Mexicans 
to the American troops of the punitive expedition have been 
freely circulated. Southern Texas has contained many 
agencies for the spreading of reports calculated to involve 
the United States in difficulties with Mexico since the very 
beginning of the Madero revolution in 1910, and the methods 
of the interventionists have been perfectly well known to 
our government and the American newspapers.' 

"If the Times is correct, and as one of the leading papers 
of the country it is in a position to speak with authority, 

40 



there have been six years of deliberate effort to start a war 
between two peaceful countries, for the purpose of making 
certain American investments in Mexico 'pay'. 

"Here is a group of dynamiters who are trying to wreck, 
not buildings but nations. Who can forget the wave of 
frenzied criticism that swept over the United States when 
the McNamara brothers were tried? They had destroyed 
life and property! To the gallows with them! Since the 
President spoke his warning against this group of buccaneers 
who are seeking to embroil two nations that do not want 
war, there has been only a feeble suggestion, in the daily 
and weekly press, that an investigation be made, that the 
offenders be discovered, tried for treason, and made to suffer 
the penalty of their misdeeds. 

"Compare this journalistic indifference to a monstrous 
crime, with the attitude of the papers, toward preparedness. 
With a few creditable exceptions, the newspapers of the 
country, during the last year and a half, have come out 
strong for preparedness and have deliberately suppressed 
news of every description that bore on the other side of the 
question. It is enlightening to have a managing editor say 
to a committee of citizens interested in offsetting the wave 
of preparedness hysteria — 'We are not here to print your side 
of the case, we are for preparedness. If you want space for 
your side, buy it.' 

"Here are strange doings! The President contenting him- 
self with a warning against treasonable acts. The press of 
a great country solid on one side of an issue of the most 
momentous consequence to the future of the country, and 
frankly refusing to print even the news on the other side. 
Why are some people anxious to bring on Mexican Inter- 
vention? Why is the American Press for preparedness and 
pro-Ally?" 

The next section, which I shall not read, is devoted 
to social differences that led to war: race, nationality, 
language and religion as differences that led to war; 
political causes of the war: 

"The germs of war lie deep in the competition for eco- 
nomic advantage that has plagued mankind for ages, and 
that still rides like a nightmare on the neck of the human 
race. 

41 



"6 The Economics of War. 

"Economic conflict has appeared in many forms. In the 
early dawn of history men were fighting for the fertile val- 
leys of the world,— Ganges, the Nile, the Tigris. Race after 
race swept down on the garden spots and drove out or en- 
slaved those who held them. For ages, history was a record 
of the campaign waged by vigorous hill-tribes against the 
more cultured, richer and less vigorous valley tribes. Then 
came the wars over trade-routes, and the struggle for the 
control of sea-going commerce. And now, under the domina- 
tion of an industrial system that is founded on the machine, 
the factory, the railroad, the bank and the retail store comes 
the international competition for foreign markets. 

"The United States, despite its 'mind your own business* 
traditions, is deeply involved with the other nations of the 
world, in the struggle for foreign markets. Just now 'South 
American Trade* is our watchword. 

"Germany held the bulk of the South American trade be- 
fore the war. England, Belgium and France had a share. 
Until recent years the business interests of the United States 
were so busy with the conquest of the continent and the de- 
velopment of American resources that they had no time to 
bother with outside sources of investment and profit. Now 
that the important resources of the United States have been 
brought under private ownership, the business interests are 
turning eager eyes to Mexico, Cuba and Central and South 
America. 

"American business interests have entered the race to 
secure their share of the unexploited resources and the un- 
developed trade of 'backward* countries. They are hot on 
the trail, but they must meet competition, and it is out of 
such competition that international misunderstandings fre- 
quently arise. 

"Has it ever struck you as remarkable that the European 
War, which began as a struggle between Serbia and Austria, 
should have developed immediately into a war between 
England and Germany? England and Germany are at war! 
There is nothing in their past to explain the conflict. Eng- 
land has fought battles with all of her principal Allies. It is 
little more than fifty years since she waged a bitter war 
against Russia. England and France are hereditary enemies. 
England helped to sweep Spain from her position as a 

42 



mistress of the world. So much for England's Allies. Now 
as to her enemies. There has never been a war between 
England and Germany. Always the two nations have been 
friends. They have the same ancestors; the same traditions. 
They fought side by side at Waterloo. England has never 
come into conflict with Austria, though her interests have 
been as opposite to the interests of Austria as they have 
been to the interests of Russia. Despite these past relations 
England, Russia and France are now Allies, and England 
and Germany are the chief antagonists in the war. 

"Why? 

"Why should a war begun in Central Europe change so 
quickly into a war between two friendly nations? Who 
would have thought it? Who, but the student of the com- 
petition between nations for the World's markets. 

"7 War Business is Good Business. 

"War business, or business war? There is nothing in a 
name but there is a great deal in the connection that exists 
between modern war and modern business. 

"The modern war is a business proposition. 

"The nation which prepares for war mobilizes munitions, 
materials, money and men. The experience of the past few 
months has showed that the hardest thing to get is muni- 
tions and the easiest thing is men. 

"Why are munitions so hard to get? Because in a modern 
war the amount of munitions consumed in a single engage- 
ment would have sufficed for an eighteenth century cam- 
paign. There have been days during the present war, when 
one side at one point in one battle front has fired a quarter 
of a million shells per day, and continued this huge ex- 
penditure day after day. This is a greater use of ammuni- 
tion than was dreamed of ten years ago, even among mili- 
tary experts. 

"The peace footing of most nations has called for a com- 
paratively small capital invested in munition factories. The 
countries now at war multiplied their munitions capital many 
times before they were on a war basis. This sudden in- 
crease in a highly specialized industry and the economic 
changes necessary to meet the situation, have called into 
prominence a new arm of the military establishment. Today 
the success or failure of the war is in the hands of the 

43 



'Minister of Munitions,' who has leaped into a position of 
supreme importance. 

"Preparedness for the war involves munition-shops 
woolen-mills, and stable credit before one regiment can 
be put in the field. War today is largely a combination of 
business organization and applied science. Men are inci- 
dental. They direct the war machines. They are 'cannon 
fodder/ They play almost the same role that machine hands 
play in an up-to-date factory. 

"Because of the business nature of up-to-date warfare 
business thrives on a war just as a fire thrives on fuel. Dur- 
ing peace times buyers are careful, they look the goods over, 
and are slow in making up their minds. Peace times are 
times of calm and deliberation. War times are times of 
fever. Men's souls are aflame with patriotism, fear, blood- 
lust and hate. 'Everything goes in war time,' and at hand- 
some prices. 

"The European War has been a wind-fall for the United 
States. Not since the Civil War have there been such op- 
portunities. Contracts are large, the need is pressing, price 
is an incident, and even quality is sacrificed to speed. 

"Since the outbreak of the European War, wealth* has 
piled up in the United States at an unheard of rate. There 
have been immense increases in the prices of rubber, copper, 
lead, zinc, petroleum, steel and other minerals, and like in- 
creases in the prices that manufacturers have been able to 
get for their products; the earnings of the munition factories 
have been phenomenal as have the dividends paid by many 
of the war trade industries. Export trade is at the highest 
point in our history. The war in Europe is the greatest 
boon that American business has perhaps ever experienced. 

"America is enjoying real prosperity — phenomenal pros- 
perity. To the American business world the war has been 
a Godsend. 

"War a Godsend? 

"Down below in the abyss from which America is drawing 
her countless millions, there are other countless millions. 
Cannons crash and guns splutter. Commands, shouts, cries, 
curses, screams and groans fill the air. Broken bodies 
writhe in agony. Other bodies lie still. Families are torn 
forever asunder; homes are desolated; children are weeping 
for their fathers, wives for their husbands and mothers for 
their sons; villages lie in ashes and cities in ruins. Pesti- 
lence creeps from house to house, and famine whines at the 

44 



door. Death in every hideous shape stalks through the 
war-torn countries. Nations heap up mountains of debt 
that must crush joy out of Europe for fifty years. Through 
the crevices and the yawning chasms of this frightful wreck- 
age tiny yellow rivulets and large yellow streams make their 
way, forming pools and little lakes in the hollows. Upon 
these we fling ourselves in an estacy of mad joy, warning 
all others back and crying 'Profit! Profit! Mine.' My very 
own!' 

"It is a commercial proposition with us. They are anxious 
to buy. We sell. Business is good. What is it to us 
whether they set the guns we make in trenches or put them 
up as monuments in the public squares? We made the guns; 
they bought them. They have what they wanted and we 
have the cash! 

"This is the point, exactly. War has become a matter of 
business. War profits are large profits. So much the better. 
We will make hay while the sun shines. 

"But suppose the sun should cease to shine? Suppose 
the war should stop tomorrow? What would become of 
the hundreds of millions of capital that have been invested 
in munitions plants? 

"There is nothing easier. We must begin now to prepare 
a market that may be used in just such an emergency. A 
large navy, and a good-sized standing army will keep a good 
deal of munitions capital busy, even in peace times. 



"8. The War Makers. 

"Those who benefit most immediately and most directly 
by the war business are the makers of the munitions of war. 
The munition makers or, more correctly the 'war makers,' 
depend for their livelihood on fear, hatred, preparedness, 
slaughter, desolation. 

"The jackal is a prince, the vulture a gentleman, the 
hyena a reputable citizen compared with these war traffick- 
ers. God made the beasts and birds what they are; the 
munition business is a man-made business. The quivering 
flesh of nations is its food. There is more joy among the 
makers of munitions over one nation at war than over fifty 
nations at peace. These scavengers of civilization make 
hell on earth and then fatten on the profits of their frightful 
business. 



45 



"If you want a picture of the work of the munition makers, 
write to Congressman Clyde H. Tavenner, House of Repre- 
sentatives, Washington, and ask for copies of his two 
masterful speeches, "The World Wide War Trust" and 
"The Navy League Unmasked." In the first of these speeches 
Congressman Tavenner shows that the munition-makers 
have received huge profits from the United States Gov- 
ernment. Shrapnel that were manufactured in the Gov- 
ernment arsenal for $7.94 were sold to Uncle Sam by the 
munition makers for $17.50; time fuses were made for $2.92 
and bought from the munition makers for $7.00; armor plate, 
torpedo flasks, rotary drums — all sold to the government for 
far more than a reasonable profit on the cost of production. 

"If it is true that we are now unprepared, argues Con- 
gressman Tavenner, after spending six hundred millions in 
the past five years on our navy; if we are unprepared and 
spending half a billion each year on our war establishment, 
there must be some reason. T believe/ he says, 'that these 
officers who, in the expenditure of the people's money, have 
been paying $115,075 for supplies which could have been 
obtained for $58,246, should somewhere or in some manner 
be required to make a public accounting for their acts. 

"Congressman Tavenner goes into the question of armor 
plate manufacture, which he describes as 'one long scandal.' 
He shows that nine official estimates place the cost of 
making a ton of armor plate at $247.17. 'Yet since 1887 we 
have purchased 217,398 tons of armor, paying the armor 
ring an average of $440.04 per ton.' Then he shows how 
the armor plate makers of England, Germany, Austria, 
France, Italy and the United States formed an armor plate 
trust and he tells of the scandals in all of those countries 
and Japan that arose out of the efforts of these war traffick- 
ers to sell more armor and thus make more profits. 

"He shows how the war makers manufacture news, mis- 
represent events, publish false alarms, and create fear in 
order to sell munitions. Case after case he cites, in which 
European Governments explored the trail of the war makers, 
and found them plotting and planning to create the same 
kind of intolerable friction between European Governments 
that the American interests referred to by the President 
have been attempting to create between the United States 
and Mexico. 

"Most vital of all, he shows that while the United States 
Government was experimenting with powder, and turning 

46 



the results of their experiments over to a great American 
firm of powder manufacturers, this American firm had a 
contract with a German firm which required it to inform 
the German firm of 'every improvement* in their process 
of manufacture, and to keep them advised of the orders for 
powder received 'from the Government of the United States, 
or any other parties.' This firm was actually turning over 
to the German firm full information regarding all of the 
powder secrets and powder business of the United States 
Government. 

"Furthermore, Congressman Tavenner shows that a man 
high in the military circles of the United States was for- 
merly in partnership with one of the great munition firms, 
and that one of these firms employs an Ex-Army Official 
and Ex-Member of Congress to attend to its business in 
Washington. So, page after page, the sickening recital 
continues. 

"The speech 'The Navy League Unmasked/ shows that 
tnese same war makers, or their representatives run up and 
down the land and, in the name of patriotism cry 'Prepare/ 
well knowing that each dollar spent for preparedness is 
money in their pockets. There is something sinister for the 
future of the republic in this 'pocket-patriotism' or 'profits 
patriotism' because, in the last analysis, it is no patriotism 
at all. 

"A group of Mexican bandits recently made a raid on a 
town in the United States, killed United States citizens and 
United States soldiers — killed them with rifles and bullets 
made in the United States. If war is declared tomorrow 
between Mexico and the United States, these profit-patriots 
would sell guns and munitions to the Mexicans as readily 
as they shipped rotten meat to the American soldiers during 
the Spanish-American War. Their country is capital. Their 
religion is profit. Their God is gold. Yet they cry patri- 
otism to a pathetically ignorant and patient citizenship 
which is beginning to wonder whether there is not a need 
for preparedness after all." 

"9. The Wolf Struggle of Nations. 

"England was the first nation to develop the modern 
competitive factory industry. Her capitalists owned the 
resources and the machines. They hired workers, paid them 
less in wages than they created in product, and took the 

47 



surplus (rent, interest, dividends, profits) for their own. 
This surplus the owners could not consume, so they in- 
vested it in new mills and mines at home. These new invest- 
ments created new floods of surplus. The capitalists then 
went abroad in search of investments. They found iron 
ore in Cuba, and Chile, and oil in Mexico. German, English 
and American capitalists invested their surplus there. There 
was hard feeling, friction, conflict. Who was to exploit 
their choice bits of the earth? 

"Patriotic Germany was ready to protect the investments 
of her capitalists. Patriotic England was willing to defend 
her capitalists. A shot sounded from somewhere and 
England and Germany were at war! 

"Now the American capitalists, who are in charge of a 
similar exploiting system, are actively engaged in their 
efforts to lay their hands on Mexico and South America. 
They are busy now, and it is Uncle Sam's turn to take a 
hand. The war will end. No matter whether England or 
Germany wins, the victor a£ain will turn her attention to 
Mexico and South America. 

"The same international, economic competition, based on 
exploitation at home and investment abroad, that drove 
England and Germany into war will drive the United States 
to war with the victor in the European conflict, no matter 
which nation wins. The American papers talk glibly now 
of sympathy with English ideals. Kaiserism they hate. 
Therefore they are pro-ally. They forget that the Czar is 
also pro-Ally, and Czarism is as repellent to American and 
English ideals as Kaiserism ever hoped to be. 

"The United States has fought two wars with England, 
and been on the verge of two more. She has never fought 
with Germany, but it will be as easy to create friction in 
one case as in the other. If you do not believe it, read 
current events; read history, and then put two and two 
together. 

"The conflict is inevitable! The United States is driving 
fast toward war. Therefore, let us prepare! 

"Just so! 

"This is the real cause. 

"Here are the germs of war, lurking in economic com- 
petition between nations. 

"Now we know why we are to prepare. Now we know 
why ninety-five per cent, of the patriotism around the cam- 
paign of the past year will be found among those who are 

48 



benefited by things as they are and as they are to be, with 
preparedness to back them. 

"The American Exploiters are to continue their system 
of exploitation; they are to take the surplus secured by this 
exploitation; they are to invest this surplus for the purpose of 
exploiting resources and people outside of United States and 
the United States is to prepare to defend them in this new 
exploiting venture. Thus preparedness is intended to back 
up economic piracy. 

"Do you object? 

"Are you willing to pay higher prices, to add to the tax 
rate, to pile up national debt, perhaps to give your son, 
your brother, your husband, your father, in this holy cause 
of economic exploitation? The oil interests, the copper 
interests, the steel interests, the timber interests, the sugar 
interests, are calling to you, 'Prepare! Prepare!' will you 
not rush to their aid? 

"You may hesitate unpatriotically, and question — 'Why,' 
you ask, 'do they not sell their surplus products at home? 
There are many in the direst need here. Why not America 
first?' Why not? Because the wages paid by these Amer- 
ican exploiters to the American wage earners are so small 
in comparison to their product, that they cannot buy back 
what they made. The American wage scale stands between 
the American worker and his product. Why are you not 
satisfied? 

"What, you still protest? Then know this. That in the 
past, the American exploiters have been under a grave dis- 
advantage as compared with their brothers abroad. They 
alone, among the capitalists of the world, have had no great 
standing army to protect their interests in their own coun- 
try. Consequently malcontents and agitators have been able 
to stir up revolts and cut profits. Stand aside! Let pre- 
paredness become a reality and the vested interests of the 
United States will have an army in the words of President 
Wilson's last message, — 'No longer than is actually and 
continuously needed for the uses of days in which no ene- 
mies move against us. Under no circumstances,' he says, 
'will we maintain a standing army except for uses which are 
as necessary in times of peace as in times of war.' " 

"10. Defending American Ideals. 

"A chorus of protest sounds, 'This preparedness is to 

49 



* 



defend American ideals, American homes, and American 
lives against the invader.' 

"Therefore, we must increase our navy and our army. 
Therefore, we must spend more billions on war though we 
were, at the beginning of the European war, spending a 
larger portion of our national revenue on war than any other 
great nation. Still we are 'defenseless* and 'utterly at the 
mercy of a foreign foe.' 

"If that is true, it might be sensible to ask what has 
become of the four and a quarter billions that we have spent 
during the past twenty years on the navy and the army. But 
that is incidental. The real question is whether the most 
threatening enemies of American ideals are in Berlin or in 
New York. 

"No one has yet invaded the United States. Those worthy 
citizens who have looked under their beds for the Kaiser each 
night during the past eighteen months have not seen him 
once. The Japanese are thousands of miles from our shores. 
England and France have not attacked us. Why then this 
chorus of protest? 

"Why Lawrence? 

"Why Paterson? 

"Why Little Falls? 

"Why West Virginia? 

"Why Colorado? 

"Why Youngstown, and the copper strike, and the clothing 
strikes, and the machinists strikes? 

"Why this dissatisfaction? This unrest? This embryo 
revolution? Can it be that the noisome tenement rookeries; 
the squalid back alleys; the toiling children; the exploited 
women; the long hours of high pressure work; and the grind- 
ing tyranny of unlimited industrial power have aroused the 
American people to revolt? 

"Note these biting phrases: 

"1. Jobs uncertain; strikes; lay-offs and sickness. 

"2. Promotion and advancement uncertain and slow. 

"3. Favoritism and partiality are frequently shown. 

"4. Pay small and limited while learning a trade. 

"5. Same old, monotonous, tiresome grind every day. 

"6. Stuffy, gloomy and uninteresting working places. 

"7. When sick, your pay stops and doctor's bill begins. 

"8. If disabled or injured you receive little or no pay. 

"9. If you die your family gets only what you have saved 
from your small wages. 

50 



"10. Little CLEAR MONEY; nearly all your pay goes for 
your living expenses. 

"11. Old age, sickness, little money saved, your job goes 
to a younger and more active man." 

"Do you know where they came from? They were printed 
on a circular issued by Uncle Sam, to explain why young 
men should join the navy, and work for seventeen dollars a 
month and board. 

"American ideals? No. They are not included in the 
description. That is not a picture of democracy, of oppor- 
tunity, of liberty, and of justice. It does tell the story of 
exploitation, and hopeless, intolerable human degradation. 

"The Kaiser did not do that to us. No, nor did the 
Mexicans, or the Japanese. Those unspeakable conditions 
of American life, that may be met with in every great center 
of industry, commerce and finance, from New York to San 
Francisco, and from Chicago to New Orleans, are the pro- 
duct of that same system of exploitation that we are now 
patriotically preparing to defend in its policy of foreign ag- 
gression." 

This is the last section, section 11. 

"11. Swat The Germ. 

"No thinking man can be patriotic to such a scheme of 
economic aggrandizement. No rational human being can 
be expected to rush forward to the defense of the gang that 
has already picked his pockets. 

"We are intelligent. 

"We use our minds. 

"We are for peace. 

"We are willing to prepare for peace. 

"The means of preparedness are as obvious as they are 
unwelcome to the profit patriots. 

"We are against war. We think we have found the germ, 
of war. Then swat the germ! Let us here highly resolve 
that we will devote our energy, our thought, our lives to the 
work of destroying the germs of war. Joining hands, let 
us declare that: 

"1. War makers must go! Henceforth, all munitions shall 
be made by the government. 

"2. War profits must go! In case of war from this day 
forward, every able-bodied man in the United States will 
be put on the government pay-roll at $17.00 a month, and 

51 



rent, interest, dividends, profits will cease until the war is 
ended. 

"3. Economic Exploitation must go! The land, the re- 
sources, the public utilities, the social tools, must all be con- 
trolled and managed socially, not for profits, but for service. 

"These three steps we will take in order to destroy the 
germs of war. Then having turned our backs on the outworn 
things of the past, we will begin the work of true prepared- 
ness — for life, joy, hope, and the future. In furtherance of 
this plan to make happy noble human beings: 

"1. We will guarantee to every child the right to be well 
born. 

"2. We will guarantee to every child the right to enough 
food, clothing and education to insure physical and mental 
health and growth. 

"3. We will guarantee to each adult the full product of his 
labor. 

"4. We will provide insurance against sickness, accident, 
unemployment and death. 

"5. We will give pensions against old age to every man 
and woman who has done his share of the work of the 
world. 

"6. We will take for social purposes all social values, 
whether in resources, in franchises, or in the product of any 
human activity. 

"7. And finally we will seek to guarantee equal oppor- 
tunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through 
a government that restricts its activities to those necessary 
to provide for securing the common weal." 

Q. I think you have a letter, a copy of a letter to 
the Toledo University that you referred to or that was 
referred to by Mr. Barnes. 

A. This is the letter that I wrote explaining my 
position on militarism on March 10th, 1917, and also 
in explanation of my relations with the Toledo Uni- 
versity : 

"During the past few days a number of prominent Toledo 
citizens have made statements indicating that my further 
continuance at Toledo University will prove detrimental to 
the welfare of that institution. In order that the Board of 
Directors may feel free to act for the best interests of the 

52 



University, I have tendered my resignation to take effect at 
their discretion. 

"My utterances on the question of pacifism and patriotism 
have let to the storm of criticism that have been excited 
against me and against the University. May I take this op- 
portunity to make clear my position? 

"I am opposed to tyranny, despotism and irresponsible 
power, whether vested in a king, kaiser or any other individ- 
ual or group of individuals. 

"I believe in the democracy and the brotherhood of all men. 
No community can endure which ignores the Golden Rule, 
the basic law of social life — 'Each for all, and all for each/ 

"Millions of people, the world over, are today seeking to 
overthrow German militarism. There are two methods of 
securing this result. The first way is to militarize all of the 
great nations. I am opposed to this plan because I believe 
that the dearest liberties, liberties of democracy must be sac- 
rificed in the process. 

"There is another method of overthrowing German mili- 
tarism — to promulgate a higher ideal than the ideal of mili- 
tarism. 

"Ideas and ideals are the most powerful and permanent 
things in the world, as our own history shows. A century 
and a half ago our ancestors immortalized themselves by 
broaching the idea of political democracy to a king-ridden 
world. Since that time, the idea has encircled the earth. 

"The only possible way to save the present day world from 
militarism is to cut to the root of the problem and establish 
an industrial democracy, which, in its turn may prove a 
beacon light to mankind. If we adopt militarism, we lower 
ourselves to the level of German militarism. If we adopt 
industrial democracy, we have an opportunity to raise them 
to our new plane of justice and liberty. 

"I oppose militarism because I believe it stands for the 
brute in human nature, and that if we adopt it the democracy 
is doomed. I hold to the doctrine, — 'Peace on earth and good 
will among men/ because I believe that only thus can the 
spirit of man be emancipated and the human race be saved. 
They that take the sword shall perish with the sword. It 
is only those who are willing to overcome evil with good that 
can attain to the full promise of manhood. 

"I revere the government that represents democracy. I 
honor the flag that stands for liberty and justice. So strong 
is my feeling on this point that I resent seeing the govern- 

53 



ment turned over to an irresponsible plutocracy, or an ir- 
responsible bureaucracy just as I resent having the flag which 
is the symbol of our democracy, used to cloak special priv- 
ilege and shameless exploitation. 

"Militarism is the madness of the past dragging us down 
and destroying us. The spirit of brotherhood and good will 
among men is the voice of the future, calling us to a higher 
plane of life than humanity has ever known. To that future 
I have dedicated my life, and so I purpose to continue to the 
end of the chapter." 

Q. That letter, I assume, was sent to the trustees 
of the Toledo University? 

A. It was sent to the press of Toledo. 

Q. You used the term "plutocracy." Will you dis- 
tinguish it as you use it in your work? 

A. Plutocracy is a word of the same root — mean- 
ing as democracy; plutocracy means rule by those 
who own wealth, whereas democracy means rule by 
the people. Wherever the wealth owners rule there 
you have plutocracy; wherever the people rule there 
you have democracy. 

Q. I wish you would give a definition as to your 
understanding of the world "capitalist" or "capital- 
ism" as you use it in this book. 

A. The term "capitalist" I used means a person, 
the major portion of whose income is derived from 
rents, interest, dividends or profits. Therein, all capital- 
ists are not necessarily plutocrats and all plutocrats 
are not necessarily capitalists. 

Now all economic control is in a very few hands 
compared with the number of capitalists, that is, 
people who receive their income through rents, inter- 
est, dividends and profits. 

Q. That is you think as an abstract proposition, 
one receiving a profit may fill both positions, so far 
as concrete cases are concerned, that is one man may 
have a salary — 

54 



A. A man may have a salary and an income from 
other sources at the same time. 

O. If you will now refer to "The Great Madness" 
which has been offered here ; will you state on what 
you based the statements there, your conclusions? 

I am directing you to recite for our information the 
data- on which you based that theoretical position 
which you there state. 

A. There are a number of kinds of data. In the 
first place the data referring to the concentration of 
industrial control. 

Q. Will you refer to that data there if you have it, 
upon what you acted in making that statement and 
basing your opinion? 

A. The trust movement, as such, ended about 1900, 
with the Spanish-American War, and that produced 
certain results, and I want to call your attention to 
the kind of results that that produced. Here, for ex- 
ample is The American Woolen Company as an 
instance of business concentration. The American 
Woolen Company has woolen mills as follows : Law- 
rence, Massachusetts ; Blackstone, Massachusetts ; 
Fulton, New York; two at Fitchburg, Massachusetts; 
Providence, Rhode Island; Maynard, Massachusetts, 
Dover, New Hampshire; three at Lowell, Massachu- 
setts; Vasselborough, Maine; Plymouth, Massachu- 
setts; Showhegan, Maine; Fairville, Maine; Harris- 
ville, Rhode Island; Winooski, Vermont; Webster, 
Massachusetts ; Dover, Maine ; Franklin, Massachu- 
setts; Enfield, New Hampshire two mills; — 

Q. Can you give us the number of the balance 
without enumerating them? 

A. I have read half the page and it extends for 
the rest and goes on over on the back. That type of 
organization is a concentration under one head of a 
large number of units like woolen mills and rolling 

55 



mills or coke ovens. 

Now there is another type of trustification or con- 
centration, tor example that represented by the Inter- 
national Harvester Company. They make harvesting 
machinery in four different cities. They have twine 
mills in three different cities. They have iron mines, 
coal mines and a steel plant, a saw-mill and they man- 
ufacture gasoline engines, wagons, separators and so 
forth in five cities. They own four railways. In other 
words they owned different kinds of industries and 
then they have one plant in Sweden, one in Denmark, 
one in Norway, two in France, one in Germany, one 
in Austria and one in Switzerland and two in Canada. 
In other words, at that point industry breaks over the 
boundaries of national lines and internationalizes 
itself. 

That is the second step in industry, concentration — 

Q. In the illustration that you have given it breaks 
over a limited class of products and includes all? 

A. Includes many products. 

Q. Includes many other products? 

A. Yes. As another illustration of the same kind 
might be the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. 
This company owns 58 tank line steamers, it owns 
refineries — 13 refineries, two in Canada, — one in 
Mexico, one in Peru and the rest in different parts of 
the United States. It owns a large system of pipe line 
property; it has a number of accessory properties 
where they maufacture cans, cases and so forth. Then 
it controls The Imperial Oil Company, Ltd. with oil 
wells in Trinidad, Mexico, Southern California and 
Peru and controls a so-called plant in Montreal. It 
has marketing stations in Canada. Then it controls 
other Companies which give it marketing facilities 
and manufacturing facilities in Great Britain and in 
seven of the other European countries, in Asia and 

56 



Australasia and South Africa. In other words you have 
there an illustration of an international economic unit. 

After that movement had spent its force, or while 
it was working itself out, there came the next step, 
financial concentration. 

I have here in my hand a copy of a chart from the 
report of the Pujo Commission. 

Q. What commission was that? 

A. That was a congressional commission appointed 
in 1912 to investigate the concentration of control and 
money and credit. It was a House of Representatives 
commission and they summed up their work with this 
chart. In the center of this chart there is J. P. Morgan 
& Company; Lee, Higginson & Company; Kidder, 
Peabody & Company; the Continental and Commer- 
cial Trust Company ; The Illinois Trust & Savings ; 
The Chicago National Bank, and then they have con- 
nected with them — I won't read all of these institu- 
tions, but it is typical of the kind of financial control, 
— they have here a series of connections. They have 
here the telegraph and the telephone industry. They 
have here a series of manufacturing corporations like 
the United States Steel, the American Radiator and 
the United States Smelting & Refining Company and 
the Baldwin Locomotive and the General Electric and 
The Pullman Company and The International Har- 
vester Company and a dozen smaller corporations ; 
and then they have the railroads, the Great Northern, 
the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Northern 
Pacific, etc., the Chesapeake and Ohio and the New 
Haven and the New York Central. The Pennsylvania, 
etc. Then they have the banks and trust companies, 
The National Shawmut Bank, The First National 
Bank, The Old Colony Trust Company, Chicago, New 
York, Boston and a series of banks. Then they have 
the insurance companies, the Equitable Life, The 

57 



Mutual Life. Then they have the International Mer- 
cantile Marine. 

I have not read all of the names, there are a couple 
of score there, but that illustrates what we call the 
concentration of financial control and that is the latest 
movement in concentration of business in the United 
States. In addition to the old trust units, which were 
individual businesses, really corelated, you now have 
big banking institutions like J. P. Morgan & Company 
reaching out into the railroads, insurance, banking, 
manufacture, public utilities and the like and control- 
ing vast pieces of property. I don't know how many 
billions of control that represents, but you can judge 
from the titles that I have read, that it is a very con- 
siderable control. And it is that kind of a statement 
that lead Mr. LaFollette in the senate to say that, 
when he asserted that 100 men — 

Q. You can not say that unless you are quoting it. 
I think, however, I am objecting in this instance for 
you, Mr. Barnes. 

THE COURT : Mr. Stedman ; I want to ask the 
witness a question on something he has already 
spoken of. 

MR. STEDMAN : Yes, your Honor. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. So as to get this clear, these definitions which 
have been given, and in order that they may be in a 
clear perspective in our minds: First, I understand 
you defined plutocracy as a situation where the people 
are ruled by those who own wealth? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now, in that characterization or phrase "who 
own wealth," whom do you include? Do you confine 
that to a few large institutions and exclude a large 
number of people who have some money or do you 
include everybody who has some money or what? 

58 



A. Well, on that definition I would not make any 
difference. There is a difference between a man's 
ruling because he is rich and a man's doing so because 
he is a man; and it doesn't make any difference 
whether there is a large or a small number so far as 
the definition is concerned. Now, I believe the power 
is exercised in the United States by a relatively small 
number. However, as far as the definition of pluto- 
cracy is concerned, it means that the authority of, that 
is the control over society is concentrated in the hands 
of people who control power because they possess 
wealth. 

Q. Now you have already given us your definition 
as to plutocracy and how it is applied to more than 
one particular kind or class of people? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now in order that we may be clear as to the 
meaning of that word from your point of view : 

Do you include in that list say, a man who, by his 
own efforts, either with his hands or with his brain or 
both, at some stage of his life, gets to a point where 
he owes no debts, where he is actively engaged in 
some occupation which you would agree was socially 
useful and where he has got net to his credit, in liqui- 
dated cash or property of some kind, let us say 
$10,000. Is he a member of the plutocracy within 
your definition? 

A. Probably not. The members of the plutocracy 
within my definition are those which exercise an 
active control over economic affairs. And you can 
make your illustration even more extreme and take 
the widows and orphans who hold railroad stock, they 
are certainly not members of the plutocracy, although 
they are capitalists in that they are getting their in- 
come from interest and dividends and although they 
exercise no control. 

59 






We socialists believe that the right of power is an 
economic power and we therefore believe that who- 
ever owns the job and the products and the surplus 
wealth will control ordinarily everything else in sight. 

Now a small coterie of people in America own the 
jobs of the rest. Now in a city like New York, I sup- 
pose 90 per cent, of the people work on jobs owned 
by somebody else. 

In the second place the product in America is owned 
by a small coterie of people. That is they own the 
coal in transit, they own the steel in process of man- 
ufacture, they owri the wheat in process of trans- 
formation into flour and so forth. The worker in 
America, the ordinary worker works on a job owned 
by somebody else. He works on a product owned by 
somebody else ; the worker in a flour mill does not own 
the wheat he works on, the worker in a silk mill does 
not own the silk he works on and the worker in the 
steel mill does not own the steel he works on. In 
return for his labor he gets a wage and over and above 
that there is a profit or surplus produced and that goes 
to the owner of the job. So that the small group of 
people in the United States who own the essential 
jobs, resources, transportation, manufacturing, financ- 
ing and merchandising, the small group which owns 
those essential jobs own the jobs of the majority, own 
the product and own the surplus created in industry. 

Now given your ownership and the economic means 
of livelihood and the rest naturally follows: 

That is, the control by the plutocracy of the ma- 
chinery of society. For example, the newspapers 
depend on their advertising, the wealth owners adver- 
tise in the newspapers and therefore the newspapers 
are likely to do what the w r ealth owners want done. 
The preparedness campaign was an excellent illustra- 
tion of that. If a college wants to acquire a quarter 

60 



of a million dollars they can not get it from working 
people, they have got to go to a member of the plu- 
tocracy, the owning class, to the people who have got 
the quarter of a million dollars, and then as I know 
in instance after instance they are good because they 
want another quarter of a million later on and they 
know r where to go to get it. 

BY MR. STEDMAN : 

Q. What do you mean by "good?" 

A. I will just illustrate by what one college presi- 
dent said to me. He said : "Well, I got a quarter of 
a million of dollars from a certain foundation, " nam- 
ing him ; he said : "I spent a year and a half in pre- 
paring myself," and he said : "I was prepared on 
every question that they could ask," and he knew the 
man who was going to ask the questions and saw that 
on every question he was prepared right. So that 
when he came for his quarter of a million he was sure 
that he was in perfect accord with the Foundation. 
And then he said to me : "Do you know a professor 
of sociology that I could get now? You understand 
1 don't want a wild-eyed radical, I want a sane safe 
man." Now he was planning to go back for his next 
quarter of a million and he would not have anybody 
in his institution who would violate the spirit of the 
Foundation that was to give him his quarter of a 
million. Now that is just an illustration. That is not 
bribery, that is not corruption, it is just a pervasive 
influence that always goes out, goes forth and con- 
trols, it is the influence which naturally comes from 
those circumstances. 

If I go to a man and ask him for $100 why the very 
first thing I want to do, I have got to get myself in 
tune with his tune, or otherwise I won't get the $100. 
We find the same thing in churches, when they want to 
get the money to do anything for the churches, they 

61 



go to the rich not to the good; they have to go to 
those who have it because if you are going to build, 
for instance a pipe organ or to build an edifice or re- 
carpet the church and you have got to have money 
and the people who have the money are the people 
that are the owners, the rich, the owners of wealth. 
And in this same way with various other public 
institutions. 

THE EIGHTH JUROR: May I ask a question? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

BY THE JUROR: 

Q. Would you consider any influence in this mat- 
ter to be organized or unorganized in mentioning a 
definition of plutocracy? 

A. In part it is instinctive and unorganized, and in 
part it is intelligent and very definitely organized. For 
example, that chart shows you a number of things, 
that part of it is very definitely organized for one 
thing. There is an instinctive cohesion of wealth. By 
the way, that phrase was used by Grover Cleveland. 
There is an instinctive cohesion of wealth, what we 
call a class consciousness or group consciousness as 
sociologists put it, that is instinctive. Above that and 
beyond it there is a very intelligent organized move- 
ment or group. 

O. In sympathy? 

A. Sympathetic. The sympathy is rather instinct- 
ive, the organization is rather intellectual. 

THE WITNESS: May I complete my answer on 
the question of control? 

BY MR. STEDMAN: 

Q. Yes. 

A. There is a clause here on page 7 about the con- 
trol by the vested interests of natural resources, banks, 
railroads, mines, factories, political parties, public of- 
ficers, courts and court decisions and school systems, 

62 



the press, the public, the movie business, the maga- 
zines and so forth. I wanted to say just a word in that 
connection : 

Whoever holds the purse strings calls the tunes. So 
also is it true, along that same line, that those who 
hold the job, the product and the surplus, are able to 
call the tune. 

And now there is another and a very important fac- 
tor in that connection. When a man who is studying 
to be an engineer, or a man who is studying to be a 
lawyer, goes to a university or a technical school, he 
goes to a university or a technical school, as a rule, 
that has got the money directly or indirectly from the 
owning group, and that is the point of view that I 
tried to indicate; and therefore as a student, he is 
trained up to be of a certain mind. When he gets out 
of school, suppose he is a lawyer, he goes into the 
practice of law. The successful lawyers today ace 
necessarily corporation lawyers because most all busi- 
ness is corporation business and most law business is 
corporation business. Therefore, if a man is success- 
ful at the Bar, as a rule, probably in nine cases out of 
ten, he is a corporation lawyer or he works for cor- 
porations. He does that for a period of eight or ten 
years. At the end of that time he gets to be a judge, 
and the spirit, the attitude — 

Q. Not all of them ! 

(Continuing) — and the spirit, the attitude with 
which he approaches his problem is not the spirit of 
the man who has lived on $15 a week, it is not 
the spirit of the labor unions, it is not the spirit or the 
attitude of the working class, because his entire clien- 
tele, his club life, his social life, has been entirely with 
the other group, and therefore you get, unconsciously, 
— and I think most of this influence is unconscious in- 
fluence, — and you get newspaper men, lawyers, preach- 

63 



ers, all of what we call the professional class, reflecting 
the spirit of that control rather than the spirit of the 
man who is working for $15 a week. 

The way in which that works out in government is 
very interestingly characterized by President Wilson. 
I would like to say for the President, that President 
Wilson is one of the best known historians and is one 
of the most thoroughly grounded political scientists in 
the United States. All of his life has been devoted to 
study and investigation of these problems, and he is 
eminently prepared as a student of the subject to give 
utterances of value. He wrote a book called "The 
New Freedom. ,, 

MR. BARNES : What was the date in which that 
was written? 

THE WITNESS: 1912. 

MR. STEDMAN : And republished in 1918. 

(Continuing) "The masters of the government of the 
United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers 
of the United States. It is written over every intimate page 
of the records of Congress; it is written all through the 
history of conferences at the White House; that the sug- 
gestions of economic policy in this country have come from 
one source, not from many sources. The benevolent guardi- 
ans, the kind-hearted trustees who have taken the trouble of 
government offices off our hands, have become so conspicuous 
that almost anybody can write out a list of them. They have 
become so conspicuous that their names are mentioned upon 
almost every political platform. The men who have under- 
taken the interesting job of taking care of us do not force 
us to requite them with anonymously directed gratitude. We 
know them by name. 

"Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your 
Government you will always find that while you are politely 
listened to the men really consulted are the men who have 
the biggest stake — the big bankers, the big manufacturers, 
the big masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corpora- 
tions and of steamship corporations. 

"I have no objection to these men being consulted because 
they also, though they do not themselves seem to admit it, 

64 



•afe part of the people of the United States, but I do very 
seriously object to these gentlemen being chiefly consulted 
and particularly to their being exclusively consulted, for, if 
the Government of the United States is to do the right thing 
by the people of the United States it has got to do it directly 
and not through the intermediation of these gentlemen. 
Every time it has come to a critical question these gentlemen 
have been yielded to and their demands treated as the de- 
mands that should be followed as a matter of course. 

"The Government of the United States is a foster-child 
of the special interests. It is not allowed to have a will of 
its own." 

And I might say that we socialists believe that 
under the capitalist system that must necessarily 
follow. 

MR. BARNES: That was before Mr. Wilson be- 
came President of the United States? 

MR. STEDMAN: But I say he authorized an 
edition in 1918, so that is one instance in which he did 
not change his mind. 

Q. Mr. Nearing, at the close of the session, you 
were reading, as I recall, from Woodrow Wilson's 
work Is there anything further you have to refer to 
there? 

A. There is just one more point that I might raise, 
in answer to one question that the Judge asked, and 
that is, the income figures as published by the 
United States Department of Internal Revenue. They 
throw r some light on the question as to how many 
people are in on the game. In 1916-1917 out of 103,- 
000,000 people, there were 121,691 who received in- 
comes of $10,000 or over per year. That is a little 
over one in a thousand. 

There were 17,000 who received incomes of $50,000 
or more per year out of a total of 103,000,000 people. 
In other words the percentage of people who got 

65 



large incomes and who get large incomes at the present 
time, if you mean by "large" $10,000 or more, is one- 
tenth of one per cent of the American people. 

Now that is not a complete answer to the question, 
but it does throw some light on the question. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. That has only to do with income? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And not with capital? 

A. That raises a question of how many people are 
well to do. You asked whether that was a large num- 
ber or small number, and it is, comparatively, a very 
small number. 

THE COURT : Let me ask you then, and I direct 
my inquiry solely as to the meaning of words: 

Q. In this second to the last paragraph of Section 
1 on page 7 you use the word "Control" and so forth. 
Now was control as used there, — do you mean by that 
intellectual control or what may be called "physical 
control," or what? 

A. I meant by that economic control through own- 
ership and emotional control through sympathy and 
intellectual control through conscious organizations, 
all three. 

Q. Well now, let me ask you this: Eliminating 
from your mind for the minute the courts of inferior 
jurisdiction and directing your mind to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, what did you mean by the 
phrase, "And controlled by the vested interests of 

courts and courts decisions," having in mind 

now the Supreme Court of the United States? 

A. I meant for example the constructions that have 
been put upon the Fourteenth Amendment. As I un- 
derstand the Fourteenth Amendment, it was made to 
protect certain human rights. As it has been con- 
strued, it has been construed to protect property 

66 



rights; and I might say that at one time I made an 
investigation of Supreme Court decisions, covering a 
period of about 60 years, and I think that nine-tenths 
of them are decisions regarding property. In the early 
period they were decisions regarding personal rights. 
In the latter period, the questions that were decided, 
the most of them, that came before the Supreme Court, 
have been, primarily, involving questions of property 
rights. And I believe that the Supreme Court of the 
United States has construed the Constitution in that 
way, on the subject of property rights, and I believe 
that as those constructions have gone, as in the case 
of the Fourteenth Amendment, property rights have 
been made superior to hum'an rights or personal 
rights. 

O. You think that your conclusion, if I gather cor- 
rectly, has a bearing on the control of the Supreme 
Court by what you designate as the "vested interests"? 

A. That comes, as I indicated this morning, or 
tried to indicate, through the control of the schools 
through which these men get their education ; through 
the control of the principal sources of revenue, in the 
law, so that these men, as a rule, in order to make a 
living, as lawyers, must work for the corporations; it 
does come through the control that is exercised by the 
ruling class over its own membership. 

The Supreme Court judges, as a rule — I know of no 
recent exceptions — are selected from what you would 
call the professional or ruling or dominating class in 
the country ; and it is from the big business lawyers or 
the lawyers of high professional standing that those 
men are taken, whether they are lawyers or doctors or 
newspaper men, they are all working under a system 
that is dominated by an economic power, and all 
working as a part of that system. 

BY MR. STEDMAN: 

67 



Q. You don't mean in that control that they go 
around and impress them with any specific objective? 

A. No. The control is exercised, as I say, through 
the training, through the environment, the club life, 
the personal association, the business relations, the 
working associations of these men. 

Q. And the habit of it all has developed? 

A. And their habits of life have been influenced 
greatly by their associations and is the product of 
those associations. In other words, I believe that 
bribery is a very crude and very seldom resorted to 
method of control. The plutocracy does not control 
through bribery except in a very minor number of 
cases, it is quite negligible as a factor. The only con- 
trol that is exercised is the control through social, 
political and economic relationships. 

Q. Directing the mind to sustain that system of 
society? 

A. And developing the psychology for sustaining 
it. May I speak about this Section No. 2? 

Q. Yes. 

A. The second section of the pamphlet is an at- 
tempt to describe the preparedness campaign, and in 
writing that section I had in mind certain facts: For 
example, at that time I was traveling a great deal 
around the United States. Whenever they took me 
into a hotel, to a hotel room, I found three books, one 
a Bible given by the Gideon's, the second a book called 
"Leading Opinions Regarding National Defense," by 
Hudson Maxim, and third, a book called "Defenseless 
America," by Hudson Maxim. 

I don't know that they were in every hotel in the 
United States, but I understand that they were to be 
found in nearly every hotel. 

And then, on the 22nd of March, 1916, the New York 
State Chamber of Commerce published a statement, a 

68 



report on "The Common Defense": 

"We have all declared the belief that the subject of 
common defense is a business question and that busi- 
ness methods and principles should be applied to it." 

Q. What are you reading from? 

A. This is the report from the New York Chamber 
of Commerce entitled "A Report on the Common 
Defense," published in 1916. 

The chief source of information on this subject, 
however, is contained in the reports of the Navy 
League and The National Security League. 

I have here in my hand a large number of their 
pamphlets and I wish to refer shortly to certain pages 
of this propaganda. 

In June, 1915, the Navy League makes the state- 
ment that "the secretary is assisted in his work of 
organizing, publicity and patriotic agitation by a staff 
of field secretaries whose duties are to establish local 
organizations of the League upon a firm basis, to 
distribute literature, arrange meetings, and give lec- 
tures and addresses, mostly illustrated, before impor- 
tant business, religious, social, educational and patri- 
otic societies of the country." 

At the annual meeting that same year they reported 
that they had distributed pamphlets to the number of 
over 500,000 copies. 

Then they reported regarding a widespread cam- 
paign in the colleges, which included organizations in 
37 of the states, and a total membership at that time 
of 70,000. 

I want to refer particularly to the methods of pro- 
paganda that the League employed. For example : 

They state in October, 1915: "With an adequate 
force, both naval and military, the United States will 
be in a position not only to enforce the rights of a just 
share of the world's commerce, but also they will be 



able to forward civilization by aiding other nations to 
attain their share." 

Q. That is in October, 1915? 

A. Yes, 1915. This is from the July issue, 1915: 

"Do Americans realize that one of the reasons why we 
must of necessity be intensely concerned in the submarine 
and trade warfare now waged between Germany and the 
allies is that in not having ships of our own with which to 
carry our Four Billion Dollars worth of merchandise and the 
German ships being unavailable, that we will lose over Two 
Billion Dollars worth of export trade unless merchant ship- 
ping of the allies are free and able to carry our goods? 

"This question faces us squarely in this country: will we 
continue to jeopardize our Four Billion Dollar trade with 
the world by trusting to luck, fate or the good will of fighting 
nations, which may have the shipping in which to carry our 
goods to safety or destruction ?" 

Then in September, 1915, they said: 

"German standards of militarism would, of course, be im- 
possible among Anglo-Saxons, but this does not minimize 
the fact that world empire is the only natural and logical aim 
of a nation that desires to remain a nation." 

Then in November, 1915 — most of these quotations 
are from "Seven Seas," one of the official publications 
of The Navy League: 

"We have now on our hands, what seems to be a white 
elephant to some, a republican empire, and no longer such 
a question of doubting whether or not, to have a navy as 
large as England's. The navy, for a coast line such as the 
United States possesses, a navy which could uphold the 
Monroe Doctrine, now moribund, such a navy must be at 
least twice the size of the British navy. And the first step 
to be taken so as to secure that sized navy is for the American 
citizens to shake off the timorous manner which is our char- 
acteristic, in asserting our Federal rights. The Imperialism 
of the American is a duty, a credit to humanity. He is the 
highest type of imperial master. He makes beautiful the 
land he touches, beautiful with moral and physical clean- 
liness; which sounds rather prosaic, but is nevertheless the 
principal of happiness for the savage if not for the imperialist. 
England certainly owns or has in some way a very large 

70 



portion of the Earth's land surface and practically has for 
some time until quite recently controlled the oceans which 
cover the hidden land surface. There should be no doubt 
that even with all possible morals, it is the absolute right of 
a nation to live to its full intensity, to expand, to found colo- 
nies, to get richer and richer by any proper means such as 
armed conquest, commerce, diplomacy." 

Q. That is from what issue? 

A. That is from November, 1915. This is from 
February, 1916: 

"The financier, the really great one, is worthy of his hire. 
The pacifist, — the professional politicians, though they 
possess in their ranks, not a few able captains of industry, 
considered it as being very dangerous to the country to allow 
armament makers to have very large profits or to do any 
lobbying or advertising. The pacifists make it a point to 
arouse the ever latent prejudice against other peoples' pro- 
fits, particularly when believed to be enormous. Democracy 
has certain glorious advantages, but in matters relating to 
foreign policy and particularly to war, it is extremely incom- 
petent. If the incentive of great profits is not allowed to 
serve as a motor to great firms, then those firms will not use 
their full initiative and they will fall into mere shadows of 
themselves. Very fortunately for themselves in Europe, all 
the great powers were exceedingly liberal with their arma- 
ment makers. The only escape we can possibly have from 
the dreadful incapacity which hangs over us is for some 
powerful and fearless group of individuals to prod the 
delinquent, to offer the right people unlimited profits so that 
they would make too much ammunition, too much navy, too 
many flying machines — all of which no government of a 
democracy would do of its own accord." 

Then in May, 1916, it says : 

"There is only one leaven which can preserve the state and 
the nation against death dealing inertia for lethargy, both 
as to soul and body, and that level is a militarism of the 
French variety." 

This is from November, 1916: 

"Has the administration given us the truth concerning con- 
ditions in Mexico or does it regard the truth as too horrible, 
too humiliating, too dangerous to be made public? From 

71 



private sources we learn of the awful fate that has overtaken 
many of our citizens who had the temerity to make their 
homes in Mexico and who were unable or unwilling to 
abandon their possessions and escape thence when the pro- 
tection of the Government failed them. Why does not the 
administration let it be known how many of these men were 
murdered, how many of their wives and daughters outraged? 
The facts must have been reported to our officials in Mexico 
and by them to Washington. Above all, why was our Gov- 
ernment unable or unwilling to protect its citizens as other 
governments did theirs? We hear that American property 
losses in Mexico amount to hundreds of millions. Are not 
the American people interested in this? It is said that 
French, British, German and other foreign property losses in 
Mexico have amounted up to tens of millions, and it is 
surmised that we, the American nation, will be held account- 
able when these nations are free to see to it. Is there noth- 
ing in this threatening danger that our people should know? 
Are they not entitled to some warning regarding a condition 
which might easily embroil us in war? 

"To fulfill the requirement in its broad sense demands that 
our army and navy, to defend the lives and property and 
rights of American citizens everywhere, on land and sea. 
An army for defense, in its broad sense, should be capable 
of invading a foreign country and compelling respect for the 
lives and rights of American citizens wherever they may be 
jeopardized." -' , , ,-q t |gff 

I would like to refer to just a paragraph of similar 
propaganda by The National Security League. 

Q. Why was the National Security League deemed 
necessary by those responsible for its organization? 

A. Because it seemed impossible, except by an 
organized campaign of education on a huge scale to 
make the people realize how deplorable our state of 
unpreparedness and the dangers that surrounded us. 

First, the League has built up an organization 
of 100,000 members in every state of the union, with 
nearly 200 organized branches in cities and towns, 
each branch being a center for the dissemination of 
preparedness sentiments. 

72 



Second, it has secured the co-operation of 17 Gov- 
ernors of states in appointing state committees on 
national defense to co-operate with the league. 

Third, it has distributed over six million pieces of 
preparedness literature. 

That illustrates the kind of material that was being 
issued and to which I was referring in Section 2. 

I would like, in that connection, to read from one 
of Clyde H. Tavenner's speeches, "The Navy League 
Unmasked." 

Q. Speech delivered in the House of Congress? 

A. The speech was delivered in the House of Rep- 
resentatives on December 15th, 1915. Congressman 
Tavenner makes the statement: "The Navy League 
would appear to be a little more than a branch office 
of the house of J. P. Morgan & Company," and then 
he gives two pages of Navy League connections, and I 
read just a few. 

J. P. Morgan was formerly treasurer of the Navy 
League and is now a director and contributor. 

Herbert L. Satterlee, formerly Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy Department and a brother-in-law of J. P. 
Morgan was one of the incorporators and founders of 
the Navy League. 

The late J. P. Morgan was one of the founders and 
principal contributors to The Navy League. 

Edward T. Stotesbury, a member of the firm of J. P. 
Morgan & Company and a director of the Baldwin 
Locomotive Works and of 54 other corporations was 
one of the honorary vice-presidents. 

Robert Bacon, formerly Secretary of State and part- 
ner of J. P. Morgan & Company, is a director of the 
Navy League. 

Henry C. Frick, a fellow director of J. P. Morgan & 
Company and director of both the United States 
Steel Corporation and the National City Bank of New 

73 



York, is an honorary vice-president. 

Jacob H. Schiff, director with J. P. Morgan in the 
National City Bank of New York, a contributor, con- 
tributed $1,000 in 1915 to The Navy League: 

J. Ogden Armour, a director, with J. P. Morgan of 
the National City Bank of New York, was one of the 
committee, which under the auspices of The National 
Security League, issued a statement certifying to 
the patriotism of the Navy League. 

Cleveland H. Dodge, a director of J. P. Morgan & 
Company and the National City Bank, among other 
corporations is also one of the vice-presidents. 

And there is another page of about the same kind. 
This is merely repetition. 

And I desire to refer again to President Wilson's 
statement, of which I have here an official copy from 
the White House, in which he denounced those who 
had been trying to stir up war between Mexico and 
the United States — I have already read that statement 
and I do not think it is necessary to go into anything 
further of detail. 

In other words, the preparedness movement was a 
movement by big business, or big business interests, 
they were behind it and were working for it, and it got 
to such a pitch that the President of the United States 
had to call them down publicly, although he took no 
further action in the matter and I wrote Section 2 to 
call your attention to the fact that the preparedness 
campaign was waged by big business organizations 
and was backed by big business machinery. 

Q. Now I presume you may refer to the third 
section. 

A. I wrote the third section for the purpose of 
showing that the business interests, having succeeded 
in stirring up public sentiment on preparedness, be- 
came the patriots, the leading business men who had 

74 



been owners of the United States resources and ma- 
chinery and economic life, became the leading patriots, 
and that they utilized this opportunity to carry on the 
usual business activity — of making profits. 

I have here a bulletin of March 3rd, 1917, from the 
Wall Street Digest: 

''Whether the end of the war comes in the near future or 
is delayed for a long time, the United States is definitely 
committed to a preparedness campaign that must assure the 
prosperity of American industries for a number of years to 
come. * * * 

"The severance of diplomatic relations meant, whether or 
not it was followed by war, that the United States must make 
ready for war and that it must make ready at the earliest 
possible moment. Logically, this means that the vast stores 
of military supplies to be purchased by the United States 
Government would be paid for in readily negotiable American 
money and not in promises to pay such as had been so largely 
taken in exchange for the vast quantities of stores supplied 
to the allied governments of Europe in the past 24 months. 

"These facts were promptly recognized by the big 
interests in Wall Street and those interests have been 
steadily committed to the constructive side of the market 
in recent weeks, as proved by the fact that while the 
nation has been on the verge of war with thousands of timid 
holders of securities seeking to liquidate their holdings, the 
big interests have been accumulating, with the net result that 
there has been a general advance in the active issues on the 
New York Stock Exchange, and a somewhat smaller advance 
in the stocks traded in on the New York Curb Market. 

"The upward movement in the price of stocks dates from 
the date that the German Ambassador at Washington was 
handed his passports and although there have been slight 
temporary reactions, the movement has been fairly continu- 
ous from that day to this. 

"In addition to the assurance of the prosperity ahead for 
American industry through the placing of vast orders by 
the Government to be paid for in American money, there 
is still another phase of the situation that must not be over- 
looked. The United States is now definitely committed to 
the side of the Entente Allies. That makes the ultimate 
victory assured. There comes the further certainty that they 

75 



will be able to refund and eventually redeem their promises 
to pay. Far sighted bankers and financiers were quick to 
sense this situation, and they have been active in the stock 
market during the past two weeks." 

Q. What is the date of that? 

A. That is March 3, 1917, one month before we 
entered the war. 

That is typical of a number of publications. I have 
here a list of them (Indicating). 

I have here a letter from the banking house of 
Henry Clews & Company, which is dated December 
23rd, 1916, and another October 14th, 1916, in which 
they make exactly the same point. In other words 
that w r as the general sentiment of the Wall Street 
group. 

Here is a publication called "Commerce & Finance" 
dated May 23rd, 1917, wherein Mr. J. Ogden Armour 
says: 

"I consider the present the most auspicious period 
from the standpoint of national prosperity in my mem- 
ory." That characterized the same attitude. 

I have here a number of clippings which I made at 
that time. Here is one from "The Toledo Blade" of 
May 19th, 1917, and a real estate dealer of Toledo says : 

"The war will teach us a very valuable lesson, a more 
valuable lesson than the Civil War brought. In real estate, 
people are buying carefully, of course, and this is no more 
than right, but they have plenty of money and are buying 
in a goodly volume. From a business standpoint we have 
much to gain and nothing to lose from this war." 

Here is another excerpt or clipping from the same 
paper of May 15th, 1917, and this is headed: "War 
Prosperity." This is an advertisement by a leading 
department store in Toledo. 

"War Prosperity. England is prosperous, France 
is prosperous, business in both countries is better than 
it was before the war. The war has made work for 

76 



everybody and puts hundreds of millions of dollars in 
circulation." 

There is another newspaper advertisement: "Take 
Canada as an Example" and they show how prosper- 
ous Canada has been. This is on the 22nd of May, 
1917, and they go on and show how prosperous Canada 
has been and show how we will be equally prosperous. 

Q. What do you mean, — by going into the war? 

A. Yes. That general situation of profiteering 
called for a statement from Mr. Wilson. That appears 
in an official bulletin on July 12th, 1917, and this is 
what the statement on profiteering is: 

"We ought not to put the acceptance of such prices — (for 
necessities) on the ground of patriotism. Patriotism has 
nothing to do with profits in a case like this. Patriotism and 
profits ought never, in the present circumstances to be men- 
tioned together. Patriotism leaves profits out of the ques- 
tion. In these days of our supreme trial, when we are send- 
ing hundreds of thousands of our young men across the seas 
to serve a great cause, no true man who stays behind to work 
for them and to sustain them by his labor will ask himself 
what he is personally going to make out of that labor. No 
true patriot will permit himself to take toll of their heroism 
in money, or seek to grow rich by the shedding of their 
blood. He will give as freely and with as unstained self- 
sacrifice as they. When they are giving their lives will he 
not at least give his money." 

That was the President's appeal to the American 
manufacturers and miners, specifically and generally 
an appeal to the profiteers. It was called for by such 
statements as I have made. 

And here is a statement from the United States 
Secretary of Agriculture dated May 9, 1917, in which 
it accuses the food speculators not only of profiteering 
but "I am told," he says, "that some of these men are 
actually in Washington today conducting a lobby 
against the request of President Wilson that Congress 
empower him and his cabinet to take the necessary 

77 



means to mobilize the agricultural resources of this 
nation." 

And then here I have a statement which I will not 
read of the war profits made by these same American 
patriots. That is, the men in The Navy League, the 
men behind the Navy League, the big men behind the 
National Security League had been making about a 
billion dollars a year approximately in war profits 
during the three years before we entered the war. 

The point I wish to make is that on the 12th of 
July the profiteering had got so bad that the President 
was compelled to issue an appeal in which he asked 
those patriots to leave profits out of account because 
in spite of their blatant patriotism they had been 
making a huge profit before we entered the war and 
they continued to make them after we entered the war. 

And in this next section, Section 3, I show that the 
preparedness group was the same group that was in 
it, to make war profits. The so-called patriots became 
profiteers. 

BY MR. STEDMAN: 

Q. I think you can turn to No. 4. I think it is in 
that where you used the phrase "preposterous phrase 
'armed neutrality/ " I think it is in this publication. 
In what sense did you mean "that preposterous 
phrase"? 

A. Why, in the first place, 

Q. Is that a phrase used by the President? It was, 
was it not? 

A. "Armed neutrality" — in the first place there 
practically is no such thing as "armed neutrality." 
There you are facing this situation, that either you 
are neutral in thought and in act, as Mr. Wilson asked 
us to be at the beginning of the war, or else you go in 
and become an ally of one side or the other. When 
this phrase was used we were supplying arms and 

78 



ammunitions and food and other contraband and non- 
contraband to the allied governments and we were not 
neutral in any extent in the matter except on the 
merest technicality. And as Mr. La Follette pointed 
out in his speech in the Senate : 

"That armed neutrality for which the President 
asked would lead inevitably to war," and in his speech 
on the 2nd of April, Mr. Wilson admitted that when 
he said "armed neutrality is ineffectual in fact at best. 
It is likely only to produce what it was meant to pre- 
vent." And as a matter of fact it did produce what it 
was meant to prevent. It was preposterous in the 
sense of its being an unreality. 

Q. Referring now to Section 5: "The Traitors?" 

A. Section 5 is the reverse of Section 3. Section 3 
is headed "The Patriots" and Section 5 is headed "The 
Traitors," and in both instances "patriots" and "trait- 
ors" are quoted in the section. 

The patriots, as I tried to point out, were the same 
group that had engineered the preparedness campaign 
and engineered it as they engineered everything — for 
profit. Now in Section 5 I am calling your attention 
to the fact that there were people among the people in 
the United States who held the opposite view, a num- 
ber of them who expressed it, and several of them in 
Congress who took issue with the majority of Con- 
gress and with the President on this whole question. 

Q. That is, opposed to the entrance into the war? 

A. Yes, sir, opposing entering into the war. 

Q. And armed neutrality? 

A. And among them were the men who had stood 
out conspicuously for years, as the champions of the 
people's rights, and they were dubbed "traitors" by 
the newspapers and by The Security League and by 
the Defense Society and by The Navy League and 
other organizations of that type simply because they 

79 



took a point of view opposite to our entrance into the 
war. 

Q. Senator Norris among those? 

A. Senator Norris was one of those. 

Q. Recently re-elected a Senator? 

A. Yes. Of the 33 Congressmen that took that 
stand, 25 were re-elected. 

Q. Thirty-three senators? 

A. And representatives. 

Q. And this paragraph is the exposition of their 
views and your title is the title which was applied to 
them by the press largely, rather than their own 
constituents? 

A. Yes, sir; it was applied to them by the press 
and by the spokesmen of the other side. 

Q. Referring to Section 6, the second division. 

A. That section refers to the actual process of our 
going into the war. I call your attention in that sec- 
tion to the fact that the situation of the Allies was 
quite serious. On the 22nd of July, 1916, the banking 
house of Henry Clews & Company, in their circular, 
stated that "the most influential factor in the security 
markets at the present is the war financing of the 
Allies. A new $100,000,000 French loan has been suc- 
cessfully launched through a specially organized cor- 
poration. It is expected to be followed by a huge 
British war credit. How long Great Britain will be 
able to stand this terrific strain no one knows, but her 
resources are so vast that the end is by no means yet 
in sight." 

Now, as I state, in this section, nobody could tell 
how serious or critical the situation of the Allies was: 
but at that time there was a statement made in the 
British House of Parliament, I think by Bonar Law, 
that America entered the war when allied credit was 
exhausted and certainly the economic situation of the 

80 



Allies was extreme, being subjected as it was to the 
effect of the submarine blockade. 

Another point I tried to make in this connection 
was that the American people had voted Mr. Wilson 
in because he had "kept the faith of neutrality. " 

I have an advertisment here from the "Pittsburgh 
Post" of November 6th, 1916, headed "Political Ad- 
vertisement," and says : 

"Are you working, not fighting, alive and happy, 
not cannon fodder. Wilson and peace with honor or 
Hughes with Roosevelt and war." 

And then they have some other later ones that 
appear : 

"If you want w r ar, vote for Hughes; if you want 
peace with honor and continued prosperity, vote for 
Wilson." 

That was the day before election. The people of 
the country very clearly answered to that mandate as 
will be shown by the following figures. In the election 
of 1916 Mr. Wilson got a plurality in California of 
3,773. In the same state the Republican Governor got 
296,815. In Kansas Mr. Wilson got 36,930 plurality. 
In the same state the Republican Governor got 152,482. 
In Minnesota Mr. Hughes got 392 plurality but the 
Republican Governor got 153,729. 

In other words, it is pretty clear that the people 
sent Mr. Wilson back into office because he "kept the 
faith of neutrality" and because he "kept us out of 
war," and the billboards were covered at that time 
with the statement that he had "kept us out of war." 
And the people sent him back, and then next April we 
went into the war. 

Q. May I direct your attention, perhaps, to another 
fact: In view of the introduction against the Rand 
School of the "St. Louis War Program Proclamation" 
which is in the book which has been submitted here, 

81 






I will ask you this, Mr. Nearing: Isn't it a fact that 
the socialist vote went down tremendously, due to the 
socialists voting for President Wilson? 

A. If I remember it, it fell off from a million to 
600,000, and that would have been practically enough 
to have elected Mr. Wilson. 

MR. BARNES : Does Mr. Nearing say 

MR. STEDMAN : That is where socialism got bit. 

MR. BARNES: Does this witness claim to have 
knowledge that the falling off of the socialist vote 
was due to that? 

MR. STEDMAN: I am stating this now, being 
that it is a well known fact, and the figures show it in 
the books which you have put in evidence here. 

MR. BARNES : It is in the book that we offered 
that the Socialist Party vote fell off, it is not in the 
book that it fell off due to Mr. Wilson or to any other 
candidate. 

MR. STEDMAN : Everyone in the party knows it, 
knew it at the time and knows it now. 

MR. BARNES : If you have any witnesses to prove 
that I would be glad to have you call them. 

THE COURT: I think it is utterly immaterial to 
the controversy we have here one w r ay or the other. 

MR. STEDMAN: It is not in controversy here, 
but I thought that you would agree to that, Mr. 
Barnes, and I was simply calling attention to it ; I was 
not trying to prove it. 

A. There is one other point that I would like to 
make in connection with this section, and that is the 
point regarding the Council of National Defense. And 
that illustrates as well as anything I know of, the way 
in wliich a government under a capitalistic society is 
compelled to depend upon the people there to do the 
work. In the United States about nine-tenths of the 
people are working people. All the professional peo- 

82 



pie, all the managers, officials and heads of industry, 
all of them together, do not make up more than one- 
tenth of the population. In spite of that fact, the 
Council of National Defense contains the names, al- 
most exclusively, of business men. 

I called attention particularly in the pamphlet to 
the committee on oil and the committee on steel and 
the like. 

Q. I think there is one exception, the committee on 
mines and mining? 

A. I didn't remember that. 

Q. I didn't know whether you have that in that 
book or not, I call your attention to it that that is one 
exception, and on it there were also a number of 
experts. 

MR. BARNES : A large percentage. 

MR. STEDMAN: A large percentage, yes. 

A. (continuing). In their committees they were 
forced to call on business men exclusively, so that the 
active work of carrying on the war business was 
thrown right into the hands of the same people that 
had, during the past, managed business. Of necessity, 
it had to be so, because there was nobody else who 
knew the game. 

Q. And you are citing that, are you, to give that 
as a matter of information and not as a matter of 
criticism? 

A. That is unavoidable. It is our theory 

Q. You are not criticising that for the method of 
doing that way, I suppose? 

A. I simply use it as an illustration of the way in 
which the machinery of society must fall back on the 
business mechanics. 

Q. That is what I am referring to and is in other 
words an explanation of the system that is obliged to 
be used. Now you refer to Number 7, the Liberty 

83 



Loan? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You spoke down there of two subjects, first of 
the financing of the war and its necessity? 

A. In the first place the Liberty Loan in my judg- 
ment was a — or rather the method of the loan, the 
way it was affected, in my judgment was the wrong 
way of financing the war. At that time, along with 
308 other professors of economics, I signed a memorial 
to Congress and this is what we said : 

"The taxation policy is practicable because the cur- 
rent income of the people, in any case, must pay the 
war expenditures. By every bond issue the Govern- 
ment increases the prices it must pay and that in- 
creases the need of more bonds. If conscription of 
men is right, conscription of income is more so." 

At that time that was the opinion of practically all 
of the leading economists of the country and was 
recognized as such. 

Q. Will you name just a few of the 308, just gen- 
erally, from one or two different universities? 

A. I don't want to hit anybody in particular, be- 
cause it is not the popular side now. 

Q. All right, Mr. Nearing, their minds have changed 
since then — I mean their expressions of their minds 
have changed since then. 

A. These men represented all of the universities of 
the United States. 

Q. I say the doctors' minds or their expressions 
have changed since then? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And that is the reason for not mentioning them? 

A. If I could mention them all, there would be 
nothing invidious about it, but if I might name one or 
two it would look bad for them. I don't want to take 
the time to name the 308 names. 



Q. If Mr. Barnes wants to he can bring that out. 

A. That time it was a generally recognized point 
of view, at that time, I say, that the war should be 
financed out of income and not by purchasing bonds 
or by the issuing of bonds. 

O. What date was that? 

A. Well, that was in the Spring and Summer. The 
President in his message on the 6th of April, said: 
"The war should be financed as largely as possible by 
the current income. " That is the theory on which the 
economists of the country were united at that time. 
We believed that it was better to pay as you go than 
it was to pay your bills by borrowing and laying up 
debts for another day. To pay as you go, that policy 
is a safer business policy and a saner business policy, 
and we thought it was a saner national policy. 

Q. They were in line with what they understood 
the President's suggestion to be? 

A. He being one of the college fraternity, naturally 
had that point of view. Then the other factor that 
entered in there, in that same connection, was the 
factor expressed in thfe editorial that I have here from 
one of the Scripps-McRea papers of May 26th, 1916, in 
the Public of October 22nd, 1915. The theory was that 
if you bond at the present time you bind the future. 

The attitude, however, taken by Congress is well 
illustrated in this Revenue Bill — this is the bill as it 
was reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
on May 9th, 1917. On page 2 they say: 

"Your Committee believes that the American people were 
never in a more favorable condition to pay a reasonable 
amount of taxes for war purposes in addition to those for 
normal purposes than at the present time. Your Committee 
has endeavored to distribute equitably this division of taxa- 
tion and hope to leave the proposed tax so as to necessitate 
as little readjustment and disturbance of the business as 
possible." 

85 



And the business interests took that point of view 
that the war should be financed by bonds just as that 
had been the same point of view in Europe. 

Then we took to the issuing of those bonds, and that 
is the particular point that I bring out in this section. 
The business interests used the opportunity to get a 
kind of a grip on their employees that they had never 
had before. Up to that time they had never been placed 
in a position where the employers could dictate to their 
employees how they should spend their income. Form- 
erly they paid them their salary, their money for their 
labor and they had no further control of it. Under 
the Liberty Loan scheme, it became possible for the 
employer practically to compel his employees to buy 
bonds, to be "patriotic" as he said, and he became the 
center of the whole scheme, of the patriotism and the 
criterion as to the patriotism and that is the reason 
that I say there that this Liberty Loan, which is the 
first Liberty Loan — did more to bulwark the position 
of Big Business as against the employee in their 
business, than will ever be done for liberty in Europe, 
because of the fact of the employer being placed in a 
position where he could dictate to the employee re- 
garding the spending of his own income. 

And I know of a number of illustrations, — I gave 
several here, of men and women who were compelled 
to buy Liberty Bonds whether they wanted to or 
whether they were able to. 

O. Now, refer to No. 8. 

A. That is the section on conscription? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I should like to refer in that connection first to 
a speech made by Daniel Webster on the 9th of De- 
cember, 1814. He starts out his speech by saying that 
this is a departure from the American traditions. He 
says: 

86 



"Let us examine the nature and extent of the power which 
is assumed by the various military measures before us. In 
the present want of men and money, the secretary of war 
has proposed to Congress a military conscription. 

"For the conquest of Canada, the people will not enlist 
and if they would the treasury is exhausted and they could 
not pay. Conscription is chosen as the most promising in- 
strument both of overcoming the reluctance to the service 
and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficien- 
cies of the exchequer." 

"Is this," he said, "consistent with the character of a free 
Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character 
of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not. The Constitu- 
tion is libelled, foully libelled, the people of this country has 
not established for them such a fabric of despotism. The 
conspirators and the others before us act on the opposite 
principle. It is their task to raise arbitrary powers by con- 
scription out of a plain written charter of national liberty. 
It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we 
have fondly cherished that we are the subjects of a mild, 
free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regu- 
lar chain of premises and conclusions that Government pos- 
sesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, 
more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full 
of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort 
of misery than has been exercised by any civilized govern- 
ment with one exception in modern times." 

And then he says: 

"The Secretary of War has favored us with an argument 
on the constitutionality of this power. If the Secretary of 
War has proved the right of Congress to enact a law enforc- 
ing a draft of men out of the militia into the regular army, 
he will, at any time, be able to prove quite as clearly that 
Congress has power to create a dictator. The arguments 
that have helped him in one case will equally help him in 
the other. 

"A free Government, with arbitrary means to administer 
it, is a contradiction; a free government, without adequate 
provisions for personal security, is an absurdity; a free gov- 
ernment with an uncontrolled power of military conscrip- 
tion, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abomin- 
able that ever entered into the head of man." 

87 



And then he ends up with a very brilliant appeal to 
the Congress in which he says that if they enforce 
conscription, it will be necessary for him to go back 
and urge his constituents not to acknowledge the thing 
or submit to the draft. 

At the same time I collected a speech of the Honor- 
able George Huddleston of Alabama, a member of 
Congress, dated January 10th, 1917, on a subject en- 
titled "Conscription is Undemocratic'' ; and a speech 
by Champ Clark of Missouri, Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. 

Q. By the way, do you recall if it was in that 
speech or at that time, his expression was given in 
which he compared the conscript with the convict? I 
don't mean in disparagement of him but in emphasiz- 
ing the character of the service imposed. 

A. "In the estimation of a Missourian there is no 
appreciable line of difference between a conscript and 
a convict." This is from the speech by Champ Clark. 

Q. Was he the man who was a candidate for the 
presidency before the Democratic Convention in Bal- 
timore? 

A. Yes. Here is the speech that Representative 
Sherwood delivered, that I will not read to you, but 
this is the same Isaac R. Sherwood of Ohio who was 
in 42 battles of the Civil War and is the only fighting 
general I believe that is still alive, and he took the 
position of being absolutely opposed to conscription. 

Q. Was he re-elected or has he been re-elected 
since then? 

A. He has been re-elected since then, yes. And 
the Honorable William E. Mason took the same po- 
sition. 

O. Do you know whether or not that is the same 
Mr. William E. Mason who is now Congressman at 



large for Illinois? 



88 



A. Yes. 

Q. Recently re-elected? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is last Fall? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Previously a United States Senator and has 
three or four sons who have volunteered in the army, 
do you know that, are you familiar with that? 

A. Yes. In other words, at that time, many of the 
most prominent members in Congress took exactly the 
same position that I did on the conscription law. They 
were opposed to the conscription law. They did not 
believe it belonged in the United States and they were 
desperately in earnest and violent in their opposition 
to it. 

THE COURT: They took that position in the 
course of the debate? 

THE WITNESS : Yes. 

Senator Mason has taken the position since then 
and that only emphasizes the more the fact that the 
things he said he thoroughly believed in. Not only, if 
your Honor please, did he take opportunity to em- 
phasize his views since then, but Senator Mason out- 
side of Congress and in public assemblies and meetings 
has done the same. And to show another fact, that 
Congress, or the powers that be, were not exactly 
satisfied with the law, the authorities required soldiers 
as a general rule to sign a waiver before being deported 
for foreign service. 

THE COURT: That doesn't prove anything at all. 
Senator Mason could do what he pleased. 

MR. STEDMAN: That is true. 

THE COURT : The point of the thing is that all 
these references as I understand, are here as to de- 
bates in Congress and occurred before the passage of 
the measure, isn't that so? 



MR. STEDMAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: Very well. Now the article was 
written after that act had become a law, was it not? 

MR. STEDMAN : That is correct. 

A. At the same time the conscription was neces- 
sary, however undesirable it might be. 

I have in my hand here a statement of the enlist- 
ments for the year 1916-1917. It is a table showing 
the number of enlistments and re-enlistments monthly 
in the line of the army. 

MR. BARNES: What date, please? 

THE COURT: Let us get the exact date, 1916- 
1917, did you say? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

(Continuing) The United States entered the war 
in April, 1917. In March, 1917, 6,000 enlistments. 
April, 29,027; in May, 39,589; in June, 31,436. In 
other words, even after the President's appeal which 
he made immediately following the declaration of war, 
even after the President's appeal, enlistments were 
coming in only at the rate of about 30,000 a month or 
360,000 a year. So that it was quite evident at that 
time that through enlistment it would be impossible in 
a reasonable time to raise an army adequate to the 
carrying on of the war. Therefore, as I say, conscrip- 
tion became necessary, however uncomfortable it 
might be to some of the Americans. 

However, if I might answer his Honor's question, 
my own opinion about conscription was not altered 
by the passage of the law. I still felt about conscrip- 
tion as I did before the passage of the law and that is 
the reason I wrote this pamphlet as I did. 

Q. That section there deals with the history of the 
passage of the act? 

A. Yes. I made the point here that three things 
were necessary for the carrying out of this war in the 

90 



United States: 

Money, men and censorship, and that the adminis- 
tration could not carry on a war without money, men 
and censorship. I talked about the matter of the 
money, in the Liberty Loan, and I talked about the 
getting of the men by conscription, and now as to 
censorship, that will be taken up as indicated in the 
next section. 

Q. There was an agitation for a repeal of the con- 
scription law after it was adopted, was there not? 

A. There was agitation for the repeal of the law. 

Q. The next you have is No. 9, Censorship. By 
the way, referring there to paragraph 8, that is the 
prior one, did you intend at that time to cause or 
attempt to cause insubordination or disloyalty or re- 
fusal of duty within the military and naval forces or 
service of the United States? 

A- I did not, I wanted the American people to 
know 

Q. I say, just a moment, just a second, I have 
another question : Did you desire to obstruct the re- 
cruiting and enlistment service of the United States 
to the injury of the service of the United States? 

A. I did not, I did not intend to do so. I wanted 
the American people to understand what was going 
on. 

Q. As you understood it? 

A. As I understood it. Now referring to. No. 9, as 
I said a moment ago, there were three things necessary 
for the successful prosecution of the war ; money, men 
and censorship ; and I presented in these sections these 
three matters. 

It has been the attitude of the plutocrat for a long 
time that we were suffering from an overdose of de- 
mocracy in the United States: Too much free speech 
and too much free press, and this war opening, gave 

91 



them an opportunity to indict and convict labor agi- 
tators and break up socialist and other radical meet- 
ings, including meetings of the Non-Partisan League, 
which was an avowedly patriotic organization. In 
other words, it gave the plutocracy a chance to put a 
gag on the kind of expression which would keep the 
American democracy informed as to what was going 
on. 

O. On the substantive offenses now — it is under 
Section 3, the substantive offenses — you are familiar 
also with the fact that a postmaster general or a mail 
clerk, or other postmaster, according to the determina- 
tion in that section, may be able to decide as to the 
mailability of certain mail matter, that is printed or 
written matter, and decide that it is against this sec- 
tion and stop its going through the mail? 

A. Yes. 

Q. When you mention the suppression of various 
papers here did you know under what provision of the 
law they were suppressed? 

A. I understood that they were suppressed under 
the provision which gives the postmaster a right to 
declare any particular publication non-mailable. 

Q. That is under the same act that this case is 
under? 

A. No, a later section of the same act. 

Q. You have mentioned some socialist papers here 
and then you have mentioned some which by the title 
would not indicate their general character. Do you 
know whether "The Rebel" of Texas was a socialist 
paper or not? 

A. I believe it was an agricultural paper. 

Q. Do you know any others than those mentioned 
here; do you recall any others? 

A. There were between 75 and 100 in all, I think. 

Q. Do you recall the names of them or of any 

92 



others? 

A. There was "The Truth" of Duluth, that was 
suppressed. It was a labor paper. 

0. And the St. Louis "Labor," do you recall it? 

A. The St. Louis "Labor" I think, also, was sup- 
pressed. I don't remember off-hand any others that 
were suppressed before the pamphlet was written. I 
know that there are others that have been suppressed 
since. 

Q. Anything further you wish to add about Sec- 
tion 9? 

A. Except to comment on the fact that at this time 
public meetings were very generally broken up. Free 
speech was quite generally denied, and the freedom of 
the press was very seriously curtailed. The Espionage 
Act, as it relates to the freedom of the press, was very 
drastic, more drastic I believe than that of any other 
nations. 

MR. BARNES: I think you are getting a little 
beyond your depth there. 

MR. STEDMAN : Oh, no, I wouldn't say that. 

MR. BARNES : Oh, yes you are. 

MR. STEDMAN: Not beyond the depth, but per- 
haps beyond the technical range. 

A. Might I say that in other nations the suppres- 
sion is merely of a part of the papers? 

MR. BARNES: You could say that that is your 
understanding. 

THE WITNESS: I have seen the papers. 

MR. BARNES : Have you knowledge of all of the 
laws? 

THE WITNESS: No, I have not, but I have seen 
the papers that have been given to the public for 
public information. 

\2> They were simply striking out parts? 

A. Taking out parts. 

93 



Q. While papers in this country 

A. Were suppressed, the whole publication. 

Q. The whole paper was closed to the mails, that 
is the entire mailing privilege was cancelled? 

MR. BARNES : That is not true, Mr. Stedman. 

MR. STEDMAN: That is not correct? I think it 
is quite correct. 

MR. BARNES: You and I differ as to the law. 
Why ask the witness to tell us what the law is ? 

Q. Mr. Nearing, referring to No. 11, I think you 
will find that generally deals with the theories that 
you have explained in some of the others, but perhaps 
not? 

A. I might say, Mr. Stedman, that I don't think 
there is anything new in any of these last three 
sections. 

Q. I want to take up "The Menace of Militarism. ,, 
I call your attention to "The Menace of Militarism" 
and particularly to the fourth section, only a portion 
of which was read by Mr. Barnes, and confine your- 
self to those portions of it that were offered. 

MR. BARNES : I didn't think that I read any of 
"The Menace of Militarism." 

MR. STEDMAN : You offered it in evidence. 

MR. BARNES : There is hardly anything in it that 
is any different. 

MR. STEDMAN : If you want it out why all right, 
I am willing. 

MR. BARNES : It is all about on the same general 
line. 

MR. STEDMAN: If I could know what counsel 
is referring to or is going to refer to, I could have the 
witness simply refer to that, if he is not going to use 
it why I wouldn't spend any time on it. I am per- 
fectly willing to omit the paper entirely without any 
explanation of it. 

94 



MR. BARNES : The chances are that I won't prob- 
ably refer to it in my closing address. 

MR. STEDMAN : If you will give me that assur- 
ance, I won't go into it. 

MR. BARNES: I don't know what I might do 
when I come to summing up. 

Q. You have that paper there? 

A. Yes. Might I call your attention in the first 
place to the quotations on the front? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I have here a series of five quotations which 
are used on the front page of "The Menace of Mili-' 
tarism." 

"I have come to have a great and wholesome respect 
for the facts." That is Woodrow Wilson, January 
27th, 1917. 

"If there is one thing that we love more deeply than 
another in the United States, it is that every man 
should have the privilege unmolested and uncriticised, 
to utter the real convictions of his mind." Woodrow 
Wilson, January 29th, 1916. 

Q. You might state the place as the Soldiers' 
Memorial Hall, Pittsburgh. 

A. The Soldiers' Memorial Hall, Pittsburgh. 

"I believe that the weakness of American character 
is that there are so few growlers and kickers amongst 
us." Woodrow Wilson in School Review, Volume 
7, page 604. 

"One thing this country never will endure is a sys- 
tem than can be called militarism." Woodrow Wilson 
at the Waldorf Astoria, New York, January 27th, 1917. 

"We have forgotten the very principle of our origin 
if we have forgotten how to object, how to resist, how 
to agitate, how to pull down and build up, even to the 
extent of revolutionary practices if it be necessary to 
readjust matters." Woodrow Wilson in School 

95 



Review, Volume 7, page 604. 

MR. STEDMAN : I don't know anything that can 
be worse than that. 

MR. BARNES: That only illustrates the old 
maxim that the devil can cite the scriptures to his own 
purposes. 

Q. Now on the interior of that page. 

A. There are six definitions of militarism. My 
own definition is that: 

"Militarism is the sway of might, organized for 
destruction. The militarist applauds the martial vir- 
tues, urges military preparedness and military training, 
glorifies war, defies victory; preaches that right must 
depend upon might, and thus makes the war-man a 
greater benefactor to his race than a peace-man. " 

Is it necessary to do any more than to refer to the 
sections here? 

Q. No, unless you have something particular in 
mind, I want you to go to No. 4, because in that you 
open with the following: 

"They lied to us! Conscientiously, deliberately, 
with premeditation and malice aforethought, they lied 
to us! The shepherds of the flock, the bishops of 
men's souls, the learned ones, the trusted ones — " that 
is the part that I refer to. Have you any explanation 
to make in regard to that? 

A. Do you wish me to read that section? 

Q. Well, I don't know. This is offered in evidence 
of course and it depends somewhat upon how long it 
is. 

A. It is pretty long. 

Q. Just one portion of it, what I have reference 
to particularly is, in stating "They lied to us." You 
have stated, I believe, that there are different motives 
in the war as you understood it. 

A. Yes, sir. 

96 



Q. And those which regarded, as you have men- 
tioned heretofore, as unavoidable, and others that re- 
garded it purely from the commercial standpoint. Of 
course even then it was perhaps necessary. With that 
in mind, do you remember what you did have in mind? 

A. This passage deals particularly with the news- 
papers. On pages 18 and 19, I have the quotations 
from the Congressional Record of February 9th, 1917, 
a speech by Mr. Calloway of Texas, in which he 
charges that the American newspapers were deliber- 
ately subsidized in order to create certain results for 
the great profit of the money-makers. 

Q. Have you that portion of that you refer to be- 
fore you? 

A. Yes, sir. This is in Mr. Calloway's statement, 
dated March, 1915: 

"In March 1915, the J. P. Morgan Interests, the steel ship 
building, the powder interests, and their subsidiary organ- 
izations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper 
world and employed them to select influential newspapers 
in the United States and a sufficient number of them to 
control generally the policy of the daily press of the United 
States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 
179 newspapers, and then began by an elimination process 
to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling 
the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. 
They found it was only necessary to purchase the control 
of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon, 
emissaries were sent to purchase the policies, national and 
international of these papers; and an agreement was reached. 
The policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the 
month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly 
supervise and edit information regarding the questions of 
preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things 
of national and international nature considered vital to the 
interests of the purchasers. 

"This contract is in existence at the present time and it 
accounts for the news columns of the daily press being 
filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepre- 
sentations as to the present conditions of the United States 

97 



army and navy and the possibility and probability of the 
United States being attacked by foreign foes." 

Congressman Moore of Pennsylvania, on March 
17th, 1917, offered a resolution to investigate the whole 
matter, and the resolution, I believe, died in commit- 
tee, at any rate it never came to the light of day. 

Q. What date was that you said that was, sir? 

A. March 17th, 1917, so that they could have aired 
the thing or exposed the whole thing if they had 
chosen to. In commenting on that I say: 

"After all, the truth or falsity of these charges is of little 
moment; the great outstanding bitter fact is that the news- 
papers instead of informing us, lied to us, — consistently." 

Whether they were bought as Mr. Calloway con- 
tends is not of any importance, they did misrepresent. 

Then in the next section I call attention to the fact 
that I studied the school-boards and the college trustee 
boards and found from seven-eighths or nine-tenths 
of their members were business or professional men, 
and the other sections of the pamphlets, up to Section 
9 are very similar to the sections of "The Great Mad- 
ness" in the same respects. 

Sections 9 and 10 vary and differ somewhat. I tried 
to point out there that the policy of compelling the 
friendship and the compelling of social organizations 
through militarism is a mistaken policy. That the 
purpose of social organization is to bring people to- 
gether; that you can not bring people together with 
a gun or a sword, you have got to bring them together 
on some kind of a basis of co-operation. 

Q. In the writing of these articles for the Rand 
School what were the circumstances under which they 
were ordered, if you recall ? 

A. Well these, — this kind of a thing is not ordered 
as a rule. As a rule, whenever I get up an idea that 

98 



seems worth working up, I work it up and then if one 
publisher won't publish it, I try another. 

Q. Did you have in mind at that time inducing 
men who were in the service to assassinate their officers 
or their superiors and causing mutiny on account of 
the declaring of war, that they should go against their 
superior officers? 

A. I did not. I had the idea in mind first in writing 
this pamphlet as in writing all my books, the one main 
point of view that I believed in above all other things, 
and that is the truth. That is, that I believed that most 
of the people were not getting the truth and I believed 
if they should have the entire truth which was not 
being set forth and stated to them in the press, and I 
considered it a responsibility, to tell them the truth. 
These pamphlets were written for the purpose of pre- 
senting one side of the general situation. 

Q. Was it or was it not your intent in writing and 
publishing the pamphlet "The Great Madness," and I 
will even include the other literature, although that 
may make the question objectionable, with the intent 
of creating insubordination, disloyalty, refusal of duty 
or mutiny in the military and naval forces of the 
United States? 

A. It was not. 

Q. Answer that yes or no? 

A. It was not. 

Q. Was it your intent by writing "The Great Mad- 
ness" or the other publications, to obstruct the recruit- 
ing or enlistment service of the United States to the 
injury of the service of the United States? 

A. It was not. 

Q. And was it your purpose or object to attempt 
to create insubordination, disloyalty, refusal of duty 
or mutiny within the military and naval forces of the 
United States? 

99 






A. It was not. Could I say one thing in that con- 
nection ? 

Q. Yes. 

A. Democracy is defined — 

THE COURT : He has told us about that. 

MR. STEDMAN: Unless he wants to explain his 
answer. 

A. May I explain my answer? 

THE COURT: It will be elicited by a question. I 
have been very liberal, as I think I ought to be in this, 
but this will have to be elicited by questions. 

MR. STEDMAN : I do not recall anything further 
that I have to ask Mr. Nearing. 



100 



The Cross Examination 

MR. BARNES: Referring to Exhibit No. 5, the 
pamphlet "The Menace of Militarism," Mr. Nearing, 
at whose request did you write that or how did you 
happen to send that to the Rand School for publica- 
tion ? 

A. At some time previous to the publication of 
these two pamphlets, I can not say just when, I re- 
member being in the Rand School and Mr. Karpf 
asking me if I would write something for the school. 
I replied that I would try. At that time or previous 
to that time, since the entrance of the European 
nations into the war I had been collecting a great deal 
of material on the war, and our relation to the whole 
situation. That was the thing then in my mind, it 
was a thing on which I was speaking and writing, and 
in the course of events I wrote up this material into 
a couple of pamphlets and submitted them to the Rand 
School. 

Q. By the way, you know who selected the pic- 
tures for the covers for The Menace of Militarism? 

A. That I do not remember. 

Q. You had nothing to do with that? 

A. I can not say, but I am perfectly willing to take 
responsibility for it. 

Q. I don't want you to take any responsibility that 
does not really belong to you. I want to know whether 
you picked out this picture, or facsimile of Jesus Christ 
being shot down by the soldiers in uniform, or sug- 
gested that that be put upon the cover of the pamphlet. 

A. I do not know. 

Q. Now when did you start your activities in op- 
position to the preparedness movement? 

101 



A. Well, I can not remember definitely but it was 
probably in the beginning of 1916. 

Q. Was it prior to the swing around the country 
that you said President Wilson made, or was it about 
that time or afterwards? 

A. Well, at that time the American Union against 
Militarism organized a group of people to take that 
swing, from the President's suggestion, and I was one 
of the group, so that I must have engaged very actively 
in the propaganda before that. However, my recollec- 
tion on the point is not clear. 

Q. And you joined the American Union against 
Militarism? 

A. Yes, sir, I did. 

Q. Did you have any official position with the or- 
ganization ? 

A. I think I was at one time a member of the Exec- 
utive Committee. 

Q. Then the object of that organization, I suppose, 
was to combat the preparedness movement? 

A. Its object was what its name signified: It was 
an organized effort to prevent the spirit of militarism 
in America. 

Q. Well, at that time it sprung into being, I think 
you just testified about the time this preparedness 
movement got under way? 

A. Yes, sir, at the time the preparedness move- 
ment was thoroughly under way, it would be at the 
end of 1915, or thereabouts. 

Q. Did you belong to any other organization of 
the same character? 

A. I think not. Do you mean previous to the writ- 
ting of these pamphlets? 

Q. No. About this time in 1915-1916 prior to our 
entry into the war? 

A. I think not. 

102 



Q. Your method in writing these pamphlets and 
the purpose of writing them was I suppose to open the 
eyes of the people so that they would not follow into 
the swing of the preparedness movement? 

A. I wanted to show the people the real way to 
prevent militarism and war. I did not believe that the 
preparedness crowd knew the real way and therefore 
I tried to present my side of the case. 

Q. You didn't want them to follow the way urged 
by the preparedness crQwd? 

A. I certainly did not. 

Q. You did not w r ant them to prepare for war by 
large appropriations of money for munitions or for the 
navy and so forth? 

A. I certainly did not. 

Q. Or by military training or anything of that 
sort? 

A. Certainly not. 

Q. Now after the severance of diplomatic relations 
with Germany in 1917, Mr. Nearing, did you join or 
belong to any other organizations whose purpose was 
to prevent our entering war at that time? 

A. The only other organization to which I be- 
longed was the People's Council. Now whether that 
was previous to the writing of these pamphlets or not 
I don't remember. 

Q. That was, however, after the war, wasn't it? 

A. That was organized — really it was organized 
the first of September, 1917, in Chicago. 

Q. And you had a preliminary organization? 

A. It was organized I think on the 31st day of May, 
1917, the preliminary organization. 

O. 1917? 

A. Yes. 

Q. You did not belong to any of the Emergency 

103 



Peace Federations' movements or anything of that 
kind? 

A. There were two organizations, The Emergency 
Peace Federation and the American Neutral Confer- 
ence Committee at that time. Whether my name is 
on the letter-head of the Emergency Peace Federation 
or not I don't remember, but if it is not I should have 
been rather glad to have it there. 

Q. We have found out in this city that the appear- 
ing of a name on a letterhead does not necessarily 
mean that the person belongs to an organization. So 
far as you know you had nothing to do with that 
society? 

A. Yes, I spoke for them. 

Q. Oh, you spoke for them? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And you are then of course in sympathy with 
their purposes for peace? 

A. Certainly. 

Q. You desired that we would not enter the war 
against Germany even after the severance of diplo- 
matic relations? 

A. I desired that we should not enter into any war 
and not this war. 

Q. Do you remember the date on which Congress 
passed the resolution recognizing that a state of war 
existed with the German Empire? 

A. April 6th, 1917. 

Q. Now do you remember the date on which the 
Seven Billion Dollar loan was passed or authorized? 

A. I do not. 

Q. About the end of April, wasn't it, 1917? 

A. No answer. 

Q. You have looked at the World Almanac? 

A. Yes, sir, I have a copy. 

Q. You recognize it as a dispenser of capitalistic 

104 



information ? 

A. No answer. 

Q. A reliable dispensor of information? 

A. It is a reliable authority on points of this char- 
acter, yes, sir. 

Q. And it appears here from page 202 that this 
statute became a law on April 24th, 1917. That is the 
law under which the Liberty Loans were floated? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you engage in any active operation in op- 
position to the passage of this act of April 24th, 1917 
for raising money for the war? 

A. I think I did. I think I made — I think I remem- 
ber making a speech in Newark, New Jersey, in which 
I opposed the method of war finance used ; I certainly 
felt opposed to that method of war finance. 

Q. You felt opposed to any method of war financ- 
ing? 

A. I felt opposed to any war. 

Q. Well, we were at war at this time when you say 
you opposed the particular proposition that was then 
before Congress, the raising of money by the issuance 
of bonds. 

A. Before we entered the war I believed that we 
should keep out of it. After we got into the war, I 
believed that we should get out of it with as little 
damage as possible and I regarded the issue of bonds 
as a method of throwing the burden of the war over 
onto the future. And I believed that the current in- 
come in the present generation should pay the costs 
of the war. 

Q. Well, my question was directed as to whether 
or not you took any active part in the opposition to 
the Act of April 24th, 1917. I understood you to say 
that you made a speech in Newark; was that correct? 

A. I believe I made a speech — I am sorry to appear 

105 



not clear on these points, but I have made about 200 
speeches a year in the past two years and I can not be 
sure where and when I said these things. But I cer- 
tainly may be understood as very emphatic in saying 
that I was then and am now opposed to issuing bonds 
as a method of raising revenue. 

Q. Now, after this bill was passed, the next ques- 
tion — big question before Congress, was the selective 
service act, was it not? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you take part in any opposition or any 
movement to prevent the raising of an army? 

A. I spoke against the passage of a conscription 
act and wrote against it in these pamphlets. 

Q. Now, at the time you made these speeches in 
opposition to the passage of the Conscription Act, 
were you speaking under the auspices of any society 
then? 

A. I probably spoke for the American Union 
Against Militarism although I would not be sure. 

Q. Where did you deliver those speeches? 

A. Well, sir, I spoke all over the United States. 

Q. That act w r as passed on the 18th of May, was 
it not? 

A. The conscription act? 

Q. This selective — this act or the conscription act? 

A. I am not certain. 

Q. About that date? 

THE COURT : That was the date. 

Q. That was the date. Are you familiar with its 
provisions ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you make your arrangements to join 
the Rand School faculty or give lectures to them dur- 
ing the following season, about what date were those 
arrangements made? 

106 



A. Well, I had been lecturing for them for two or 
three years, and I do not remember. It was taken for 
granted that I would come back and lecture each year. 

Q. Had you been lecturing for them in the same — 
with the same frequency prior to 1917, that you did 
during the season of 1917 and 1918? 

A. Well, no, because previous to that I had lived 
in Philadelphia or in Toledo, and in the Fall of 1917, 
I came to New York, and therefore I was able to give 
more courses at the school than I had ever been able 
to give before. 

Q. You spoke about The People's Council; when 
was the preliminary organization of The People's 
Council arranged for? 

A. May 31st, 1917. 

Q. And were you one of the founders of that? 

A. I w r as one of the speakers at their meeting and 
I think I was a member of their executive committee 
although I am not certain on that point. I certainly 
approved of — 

Q. Didn't you become the chairman, practically? 

A. September 16th, 1917. 

Q. And you did prepare, did you not, an outline 
for the organization of The People's Council? 

A. I did. 

Q. And what was the announced purpose of the 
People's Council? 

A. There were three different purposes : The first 
one w r as to secure a statement of peace terms, of war 
aims; the second was to preserve civil liberties; the 
third, was to safeguard economic and industrial stand- 
ards and rights. 

Q. I call your attention to Bulletin No. 4 of The 
People's Council which is dated September 1st, 1917 
and I ask you if you are familiar with that address 
signed by the executive committee? (Handing paper 

107 



to witness.) Perhaps I am getting ahead of my story. 

A. I just as leave answer your question. 

Q. I know you would. When you say that the 
immediate business of The People's Council, was not 
for the opening of negotiations for peace, have you 
any reference to any particular period of time? 

A. Yes, you asked me about the plan that I drew 
up in May. 

Q. In May, oh, I see. The purpose was then of 
having the country state their peace terms in order to 
obtain peace, was it not? 

A. Yes, sir, in order to bring about the beginning 
of peace negotiations. 

Q. What was the theory of the people in The 
People's Conference, was not that something modeled 
along the lines of the Working Men's Council of 
Russia? 

A. The theory of The People's Council as I under- 
stood it was that the Liberal and Radical elements of 
the country should get together and express their 
opinions in coherent form just as the banking and 
business houses of the country had gotten together 
in the preparedness campaign and expressed their 
point of view. 

Q. Well, doctor, is it also a fact, that they were 
to be in continuous session, or it was to remain in con- 
tinuous session during the war? 

A. Yes, sir, I think we used the phrase in relation 
to that as a "parliament of the people." That was a 
phrase used by Mr. Wilson in the New Freedom. 

Q. Did you join any other society springing up 
after our entrance into the war? 

A. I do not remember. I do not remember whether 
I was a member of the executive committee of the 
Civil Liberties Bureau at any time, I may have been, 
but I am not certain. I might say that I joined the 

108 



Socialist Party, is that what you are after? 

Q. I am not after anything. Did you — don't call 
the Socialist Party a party — well, I am speaking really 
with reference to parties that sprung up after the war ; 
that was in existence before the war. What was this 
National Civil Liberties Bureau, that you don't know 
whether you were or were not a member of? 

A. The National Civil Liberties Bureau, was an 
organization of private citizens who believed that the 
First Amendment to the Constitution should be en- 
forced. 

Q. We are not all constitutional lawyers, tell us 
what the first amendment to the Constitution is? 

A. Congress shall make no law respecting the es- 
tablishment of religion or abridging the freedom of 
speech or press or the rights of the people, to assemble 
and petition Congress for a redress of their grievances. 

Q. You say the National Civil Liberties Bureau, 
devoted its activities to seeing that Congress should 
not make such a law, or did it devote its activities to 
opposing such laws as Congress had enacted that in 
its judgment were in violation of that Amendment? 

A. As I recollect, The National Civil Liberties 
views at that time, they were devoted exclusively to 
the protection of civil liberties as guaranteed under 
that First Amendment. 

Q. Its conception of that? 

A. Yes, or understanding of it, yes, sir, and it reads 
very plainly. 

Q. And that embraced, did it not, handling cases 
of the Conscientious Objector? 

A. It did. 

Q. And also of the soap-box orator? 

A. Yes, sir. And the suppressions of newspapers 
and the suppressions of assemblies and of the sup- 
pression and prosecution of petitioners. 

1QP 



Q. In fact, any curtailment of the ordinary civil 
liberties which were enjoyed in times of peace. It 
was the purpose of this society insofar as the curtail- 
ment concerned the matters mentioned in the Amend- 
ment to the Constitution, it was the purpose of this 
Society to fight? 

A. It was the purpose of the Society to insist upon 
the enjoyment of the liberties guaranteed under the 
Constitution. 

Q. And it opposed any curtailment of the custom- 
ary right of free speech and the customary right of 
assemblage and those other things? 

A. That is a negative purpose. Its purpose was 
positive. It was to insist upon the rights of free speech 
and free assemblage. 

Q. When did you join the Socialist Party? 

A. July 1st, 1917. I did not join before that time 
because I had taught school up to that time and I 
believed that a teacher should not be a propagandist. 

Q. You are teaching school now? 

A. Incidentally I am lecturing, yes. 

Q. Is not lecturing teaching? 

A. Yes, sir, and so is writing. 

Q. Well, you did sign, then, I take it, an original 
application just like this here? 

A. I signed the application blank and I did join 
the Socialist Party on the 1st of July, 1917. 

MR. BARNES : I offer this in evidence. 

MR. STEDMAN : It is objected to as utterly in- 
competent and immaterial. I do not see that it meets 
any issue in this case, whether he joined that party or 
the prohibition party. 

THE COURT: What is the theory, Mr. Barnes? 

MR. BARNES : The theory is that the gentleman 
joined the Socialist Party and consented to the senti- 
ments contained in the application which stated "in 

110 



all my political actions as a member of the Socialist 
Party, I agree to be guided by the constitution and 
platform of that party," and we have shown what the 
constitution and platform of the party were with re- 
gard to war, and as adopted at the Convention in 
April, 1917. 

MR. STEDMAN: I have the right to say some- 
thing on it and before I do I have the right to see what 
you are offering. I have not seen this card. 

MR. BARNES: Have you never seen that before? 
I am astonished. 

MR. STEDMAN : No, I never saw this card before 
so your astonishment may continue. 

Q. Now, then, you joined the Socialist Party on 
the first of July; did you read the majority resolution 
of that Party as promulgated at the St. Louis conven- 
tion April, 1917? 

A. I did. 

Q. Did you approve of it? 

A. With one exception I did and that one excep- 
tion is the clause — 

MR. STEDMAN : Just one second, you are asked 
a question that calls for yes or no answer to that ques- 
tion. 

MR. BARNES: However, I will not insist upon 
my offer if Mr. Stedman insists on his objection, and 
I insist on the witness' answering yes or no. 

THE COURT: He said, "with one exception I 
did," and that is an answer. 

MR. BARNES : I am going to try to find out what 
that exception is. 

A. I will tell you what the exception was if you 
want me to. 

Q. I would rather come to it in my own good time. 

A. I beg your pardon. 

O. Did you vote in favor of the adoption of the 

111 



platform by the referendum? 

A. I did not, and if I had been — 

MR. STEDMAN: Wait now, you have answered 
the question. 

MR. BARNES : Now, if the Court please, I don't 
think it is proper for my adversary to get up here and 
stop off this witness while he is under cross-examina- 
tion. 

THE COURT : The Government is right— 

MR. STEDMAN : The Government is right, yes, 
to have an answer to his question, but I object to 
volunteering answers, whether it is from my client or 
another's. 

THE COURT : Is that the conclusion of the volun- 
teering, you don't like it? You can move to strike it 
out. 

MR STEDMAN : And I do move to strike it out, 
the volunteered part. 

THE COURT : That is a classic method. 

MR. STEDMAN : I believe in the conscription sys- 
tem, not the volunteer ! 

Q. You say, Mr. Nearing, that while you did not 
vote for the adopting of it, you would have done so 
if you had been in Toledo at the present time? 

A. If I had had an opportunity to have done so, I 
certainly should have done so. 

Q. The next thing, now, going back over some of 
these — have you a copy of the American Labor Year 
Book? 

A. Yes, sir, I have. Are you going to question me 
on the majority platform question as it occurs in that 
Labor Year Book ? 

Q. On the majority resolution in that Labor Year 
Book. Now referring, Mr. Nearing, to page 50 of the 
Year Book, the first paragraph: 

"The Socialist Party of the United States in the 

112 



present grave crisis, solemnly reaffirms its allegiance 
to the principle of internationalism and working class 
solidarity, the world over/' What did you understand 
by the principle of "internationalism and working class 
solidarity the world over?" 

A. Why, I understood that to be a declaration of 
a social antagonism between the owning class and the 
working class, and the desirability of the workers 
standing by their own crowd. 

Q. Reading further: "And proclaims its unalter- 
able opposition to the war just declared by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States." Did you approve of 
that? 

A. I did. 

Q. And did that represent your individual position 
during the Summer of 1917? 

A. I was opposed to this war and all wars. 

O. And you were unalterably opposed to it? 

A. Unalterably opposed to this war and to all wars. 

Q. On the next page, on page 51, in the second 
paragraph: "We therefore call upon the workers of 
all countries to refuse support to their Governments 
in their wars." Did you approve of that? 

A. Yes, sir. I do not believe that a working man 
has any right to fight in a capitalistic or any other 
war. 

Q. And you regard this as such a war? 

A. As a capitalists' war, a war between capitalist 
nations. 

Q. And then just below that: "As against the 
false doctrine of national patriotism." What did you 
mean by that or what did you understand that meant? 

A. I understood that whenever a man's fealty to 
a group reaches a stage where it compels him to go 
out and destroy another group, it is a false and perni- 
cious and insidious social doctrine. That is the old 

113 



standard of countries dealing with feudisms, and it is 
the present standard that makes warfare between 
nations and it is the disintegrating social influence 
which we are trying to combat. 

Q. That is whenever a man's fealty to his country, 
that is to his own particular nation to which he be- 
longs leads him to a point that he wants to go out and 
whip the people belonging to another nation, you feel 
that that is a false sentiment and doctrine? 

A. Any social standard that leads one man to raise 
his hand against — in violence against — any other man 
is a false standard and doctrine. 

Q. May a class war lead a man to raise his hand 
in violence against the capitalistic class? 

A. At that point I disapprove of it. 

Q. At that point you are a pacifist socialist? 

A. I am a pacifist, yes. 

Q. You are a pacifist even to class struggles? 

A. I am a pacifist in that I believe that no man has 
a right to do violence to any other man. 

Q. Even in a class struggle? 

A. Under no circumstances. 

Q. Just below that, "in support of capitalism we 
will not willingly give a single life or a single dollar." 
Did you approve of that? 

A. I did. I believed that workers had nothing in 
common with the capitalist system. 

Q. You mean as applied to the situation in 1917, 
that that would mean that you would not volunteer 
in the army and that you would not subscribe to liberty 
loans and so forth? 

A. I mean that I would not be willing to support 
a capitalistic war. 

Q. Can not you answer whether that meant those 
specific things : volunteering in the army and subscrib- 
ing to the liberty loans ? 

114 



A. Are you asking what it meant to me? 

Q. Yes. 

A. It meant to me that I would not volunteer for 
the army and that I would not subscribe to liberty 
bonds. 

Q. And it was that position that you felt that other 
persons should take? 

A. Each man has a right to do — to take his own 
position. That was what that platform meant to me. 

Q. And that is what you were working for? 

A. That is the thing in which I believed and the 
thing for which I am still working. 

Q. And were working in 1917? 

A. And was working in 1917, and before that. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. Did that include a desire on your part to im- 
press your views in that regard on others? 

A. Only insofar as others were interested in my 
views. 

Q. Well, that answer is not very clear. You ex- 
pressed certain views. Did you desire to impress 
those views on others? 

A. Yes, sir, else I should not have spoken and 
written. I did not desire to force them upon others. 

Q. I didn't say "force. " I mean impress it on 
others ? 

A. Well, the word "impress" is not so clear. I 
desired to place that before other people for their ac- 
ceptance or rejection. 

BY MR. BARNES: 

Q. But you desired to persuade them to their ac- 
ceptance did you not? 

A. If possible, yes. That is the purpose of teach- 
ing. 

O. Page 52 : "We brand the declaration of war by 
our Government as a crime against the people of the 

115 



United States and against the nations of the world." 
Did you agree with that sentiment? 

MR. STEDMAN: I object to it as incompetent 
upon any grounds, whether he agrees with it or not. 
I object to it on the ground that it does not go to 
motive, it does not go to intent and certainly does not 
go to wilfulness and is certainly not an issue in this 
case. It is of course perfectly apparent to me why he 
is being asked these questions. 

MR. BARNES : I am glad. 

MR. STEDMAN : And you are trying the Socialist 
Party, that is what you are doing here, you are at- 
tempting to try the Socialist Party. 

MR. BARNES: Oh, no, not at all. 

MR. STEDMAN: And that is perfectly apparent 
to me that that is what you are attempting to do. 

THE COURT: I tried to make clear by previous 
rulings — the question now is merely calling for the 
view of the defendant, but it does not call for an inter- 
pretation of the language, because the language pre- 
sumably is very simple and very clear. It is not, as 
I view it in any manner, a trial of any party, it is a 
search by the Government counsel on cross-examina- 
tion under familiar rules, of the view of the defendant 
on the question of intent, he having been permitted 
and I think very properly so to explain the meaning 
of the expressions in "The Great Madness." Now if it 
does not call for a construction of the paper but simply 
calls for a statement from the witness as to whether 
he agreed with the statement or not, and as the state- 
ment is entirely simple, I will allow the question. 

A. I did; I regard any declaration of war as a 
crime against the human race. 

Q. Now the next sentence : "In all modern history 
there has been no war more unjustifiable than the war 
in which w r e are about to engage." Did you agree 
with that? 

116 



A. I did, because the more intelligent people be- 
come the less justifiable does war become. 

Q. And the next sentence: "No greater dishonor 
has ever been forced upon a people than that which 
the capitalist class is forcing upon this nation against 
its will." Did you agree with that sentiment? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And the next sentence: "In harmony with 
these principles, the Socialist Party emphatically re- 
jects the proposal that in time of w T ar the workers 
should suspend their struggle for better conditions." 
Did you agree with that? 

A. Certainly, because I regard war as an incident 
to the economic struggle, and the economic struggle 
as fundamental and continuous. 

Q. And the next clause: "The acute situation 
created by war calls for an even more vigorous pro- 
secution of the class struggle. " Did you agree with 
that? 

A. Yes, sir, if you interpret the "class struggle" 
to mean the struggle of the workers to better their 
economic conditions under which they are laboring. 

Q. That is a struggle against the capitalists? 

A. A struggle against the capitalists. 

Q. There are certain recommendations here : "We 
recommend to the workers and pledge ourselves to 
the following course of action : 

1. Continuous, active and public opposition to the 
war through demonstrations, mass petitions and all* 
other means within our power." Did you agree with 
that? 

A. Yes, sir. I believe that we should have used 
all legal means to bring the war to a speedy conclu- 
sion. 

Q. Do you find anything in there about "legal 
means," any limitations to "legal means?" 

117 



A. It says "within our power/' and the Socialist 
Party has always taken the position that it acts with- 
in the law. 

Q. "Unyielding opposition to all proposed legis- 
lation for military or industrial conscription. Should 
such conscription be forced upon the people we pledge 
ourselves to continuous efforts for the repeal of such 
laws and to the support of all mass movements in op- 
position to conscription. " Did you approve of that? 

A. So long as the "mass movements" were legal, 
yes. 

Q. What do you mean by "mass movements ?" 

MR. STEDMAN: I object if your Honor please, 
a mass is always distinguishable from individual ac- 
tion, it is plain from the language. 

Q. You would like to explain what you mean by 
mass movements, wouldn't you? 

A. I would like to have an opportunity to answer 
all of your questions fully and frankly. 

Q. I think you are answering them very fully and 
frankly. Now I am asking you, would not you like an 
opportunity to tell these 12 gentlemen of the Jury 
what you meant, what you understood by the meaning 
of "mass movement" in opposition to conscription 
when you approved of it? 

A. You mean would I like to answer that ques- 
tion? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I certainly would. 

MR. BARNES: Now, Mr. Stedman, won't you 
please let your client answer the question? 

MR. STEDMAN : My client will be retaining him 
in a little while. 

Q. Now tell us what you mean by "mass move- 
ments" and what you understood "mass movements" 
in opposition to conscription meant? 

118 



THE COURT: Silence on the part of counsel? 

MR. STEDMAN : I said that my client would be 
retaining him in a little while, your Honor. 

MR. BARNES : The Court wants to know if you 
withdraw your objection. 

MR. STEDMAN: No I think I shall let it stand. 

THE COURT: Objection sustained. 

MR. BARNES : You'd better get another lawyer. 

Q. Now, Mr. Nearing, let us turn over to page 377, 
where we have the "Socialist Party platform" and then 
turn over particularly to the place with reference to 
immediate program, and with particular reference to 
paragraph No. 6 — I will read the introduction first: 

"The following are measures which we believe of 
immediate practical importance and for which we 
wage an especially energetic campaign. 

"6. Resistance to compulsory military training and 
to the conscription of life and labor." Did you approve 
of that? 

A. I did as a policy of objecting to a policy. In 
other words, I thought the policy of military training 
and the conscription of life and labor was a bad social 
policy. 

Q. And did you approve of the next paragraph : 

"Repudiation of war debts?" 

A. Emphatically, yes. 

Q. Now you are familiar with the first liberty loan 
campaign ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that took place during the first part of 
June, 1917? 

A. That, I do not remember. 

O. Well, it took place before you wrote this book? 

A. It did. 

Q. And you regarded the liberty loan, of course, 
as a war debt? 

119 



A. I regarded it as a war debt and as a financial 
mistake. 

Q. But it had a great many subscribers? 

A. It had a great many. 

Q. It had a great many. Do you approve of the 
repudiation of that loan? 

A. As a socialist, I approve of the confiscation of 
all forms of property which enables one man to live 
without work on another man's labor, and that in- 
cludes the liberty loan or any other form of bonded 
indebtedness. 

Q. The question is whether you approved of the 
repudiation of the loan, the loan having been floated 
or made, or whatever you choose to call it, prior to the 
writing or printing and distribution of "The Great 
Madness." 

THE WITNESS : Well, I was asked here sir, re- 
garding this statement No. 7, "repudiation of war 
debts," I regard that as the essential thing for all of 
the peoples of the world to do, including the peoples 
of the United States. 

Q. The liberty loan was a war debt, was it not? 

A. It was. 

Q. And when you approved of this plank in the 
"immediate program" you approved of the repudiation 
of the liberty loan among other debts? 

A. Of that and all other war debts, and all debts 
of a similar nature. In other words, I am not object- 
ing to that because they are war debts, I am objecting 
to that because they are a form of property which en- 
ables one man to live parasitically on another man's 
labor. 

O. Now on the first page we have three quota- 
tions, one from Mohammed and two from his Modern 
Disciple John Reed. Did you select those quotations? 

A. I did. I might say, sir, that the title of the 

120 



pamphlet was suggested to me because of a speech by- 
President Wilson, at Kansas City, in which he said, 
"madness has entered into all things," and that sug- 
gested to me this title. 

Q. Was he speaking of Europe or America at that 
time? 

A. He was speaking of Europe at that time. That 
was before America got the madness. 

Q. Now, at the end of the first paragraph you say, 
this is on page 5 : "The American plutocracy urged 
the war, shouted for it, demanded it, insisted upon it 
and finally got it." Now tell us just what you meant 
by the American plutocracy as used in that sentence? 

A. By the American plutocracy, I meant the small 
group of men who exercise the authority in affairs of 
economic, social and other forms of American life. 

Q. Well, now, you say here, going back to page 5, 
"American plutocracy urged the war, shouted for it, 
demanded it, insisted upon it and finally got it"; did 
you mean by that, that for selfish reasons big business 
wanted to have us get into the war? 

A. Why, after a certain point, yes. That is after 
the Big Business interests were so involved with the 
Allied credit that nothing except our entrance into the 
war would prevent the smash of the Allied credit ma- 
chine. 

O. Now what date would you place that? 

A. I read some documents yesterday which indi- 
cated that it was some time along in the early part of 
1917, or late 1916. It was very difficult then, to get 
any information at all about the situation. 

Q. This preparedness campaign you told us about 
was in the Fall of 1916? 

A. 1915-1916. 

Q. At that stage do you think that Big Business 
wanted us to get into the war? 

121 



A. Probably not. 

Q. Probably not? 

A. Because at that time Big Business was pri- 
marily interested in the South American and Central 
American and West Indian markets. 

Q. That is what it was after at that time? 

A. Yes, sir; that is at the time when President 
Wilson, issued his Mexican manifesto to which I re- 
ferred yesterday. 

Q. You are satisfied that Big Business at that time 
did not want us to go into the war? 

A. No, I don't think it did, I don't think it was to 
the interest of business men then to go into the war. 

Q. And that is why you think they did not want 
us to? 

A. Well, as I regard the economic control, as I 
say here in the pamphlet they are just like other peo- 
ple, they are out to make profits and they will do the 
thing that will make the most profit. 

Q. That is what they are primarily out after? 

A. They are primarily out for profits, they are not 
in business for their health, as they say. 

Q. Well, now, getting down to the Spring of 1917, 
and the Fall of 1916; at that time was it your idea 
that American big business wanted us to get into the 
war? 

A. Yes, sir, at the point where allied credit was 
reaching the breaking point. 

Q. And that it wanted us to get into the war for 
their own selfish interests? 

A. For their own selfish reasons? Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you say, the business interests realize 
that war is barbarous and they would avoid it if they 
possibly could. They also believe that there are some 
things worse than war: "the confiscation of special 
privileges, the abolition of unearned income ; the over- 

122 



throw of the economic parasitism; the establishment 
of industrial democracy." That is your idea of why 
the 2% of the people wanted us to go, or were willing 
that we should go, into the war? 

A. Not necessarily, that is my idea of the reason 
why the plutocracy was willing to take war if neces- 
sary. There is a definite ruling class psychology that 
dominates not only the rulers themselves, but those 
who work intimately with them in their affairs and 
that includes the professional group very often. I 
believe that the members of the capitalist class as a 
rule would prefer war to the disestablishment of 
capitalism. 

Q. What political party advocated the calamities 
that you mentioned here, that is : "industrial democ- 
racy" and the "overthrow of economic parasitism," 
and the "abolition of unearned income" and "confisca- 
tion of special privileges?" 

A. That is the platform of the Socialists the world 
over. 

Q. And it is a platform that is peculiar to the 
Socialist Party, isn't it? 

A. Yes, sir, that is what the Socialist Party stands 
for: the disestablishment of the capitalistic system. 

Q. Your argument was practically or is practically 
that the capitalists, as a matter of fact, would welcome 
a war to save them from the calamities defined by the 
Socialist Party? 

A. I say the capitalistic classes would undoubt- 
edly ; and I believe that the capitalists did that in Ger- 
many and in certain other European countries. 

Q. You think they did it here? 

A. No, the Socialist Party here is not a sufficient 
factor to be dangerous in that sense. 

Q. So that you do not feel that in this country the 
capitalist class was afraid of the Socialist Party? 

123 



A. Not yet. 

Q. Not at that time? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. I am speaking of 1917? 

A. No, sir. 

THE COURT: (Addressing spectators) Gentle- 
men, let us not overstep the bounds of decorum. I 
have stated before that I am pretty liberal, but you 
can smile without making a noise about it. 

Q. As a matter of fact, the Socialist Party had 
been going backwards, had it not, for three or four 
years, as far as membership was concerned, prior to 
1917? 

A. I can not answer that. I do not know. 

Q. Look at your Year Book, page 336, and you will 
find at the top of page 336, the percentage of socialist 
vote of the total vote, and then in 1912 it was 5 9/10%, 
whereas in 1916, it was only 3 2/10% ? 

A. Yes, sir, that is when the Socialists voted for 
Mr. Wilson because "he kept us out of the war." 

Q. Do you mean to say the Socialists voted for 
Mr. Wilson? 

A. Many of them. 

Q. Haven't you a rule in the Socialist Party, that 
you have got to swear that you are going to stand by 
the Socialist Party candidate, you are going to sup- 
port the Party candidate? 

A. That is like all other rules. 

Q. You do not follow your own rules? 

A. Well, we try to. 

Q. Now further down on the same page: "The 
wealth of the country was vast, enough to feed, clothe, 
house and educate every boy and girl ; enough to give 
all of the necessities and most of the simple comforts 
of life to every family. The plutocrats were not inter- 
ested in these matters however/' Whom do you mean 

124 



by the plutocrats when you say as you do there those 
things and use that expression? 

A. I mean the ruling power in the country. 

Q. And you mean men of great wealth like Rocke- 
feller? 

A. I mean the men who were dominating and di- 
recting economically, the public affairs. 

Q. Do you mean to say that those men were not 
interested in educational and charitable institutions? 

A. Well, educational and charitable institutions 
are merely plasters and poultices to keep this kind of 
thing going. I do not regard the contributing to char- 
ities as sympathetic; I just regard them as a sort of 
social fire insurance. 

Q. In other words, when you used that term "plu- 
tocrats" and said that they were not interested in these 
affairs, however, and after referring to food and cloth- 
ing and housing and educating people, you meant 
merely that they were not interested in doing it in 
your particular way? 

A. No, sir. 

MR. STEDMAN: Mr. Nearing, you answer so 
quickly, I don't have a chance to object and I want to 
make an objection to the last question. 

I ask your Honor, that the witness' last answer be 
stricken out, as I want a ruling on this line of ques- 
tions, and I either get caught by the inability to tell 
when the prosecution has finished a question, or by the 
football rush of the witness to answer. 

Q. On page 11 of the second paragraph you say: 
"Aggressive Germany was the danger mark. It was 
against her infamous desire to impose kultur upon the 
world that America was urged to prepare herself. It 
was for this purpose that the President signed a bill 
during the Summer of 1916, appropriating $662,000,000 
for the army and navy, a sum larger than had ever 

125 



before been appropriated for war purposes by any 
nation in times of peace. Well might LaFollette ex- 
claim in his speech of July 19th to 20th, 1916, opposing 
this appropriation: 'I object, Mr. President, to a 
game, a plan, a conspiracy, to force upon this country 
a big army and a big navy to use the treasury of the 
country, and if need be, the lives of its people, to make 
good the foreign speculations of a few unscrupulous 
masters of finance.' " 

Now that was of course after Mr. Tavenner had 
made his speech and Mr. LaFollette had made his 
objections, that Congress passed this legislation, was 
it not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And was it your idea that Congress, in passing 
legislation and the President in signing it, were acting 
in bad faith or that they were not intelligent enough 
to see the real situation? 

A. I disagree with them as a matter of policy. I 
regarded this as the beginning of a system of mili- 
tarism for the United States. I think that subsequent 
events have more than justified my anticipation. 

Q. You do not think though that they were act- 
ing in bad j aith ? 

A. No, I think they were acting as the imperialists 
tried to get them to act. 

Q. And you think they merely could not see 
the real truth as you saw it? 

A. I don't know whether they could see the real 
truth or not ; they were acting in conformity with im- 
perialistic policy. 

Q. And you think Congress and the President then 
in passing this legislation were acting truly as to what 
they really believed? 

A. The President had declared emphatically again 
and again against this kind of policy. 

126 



Q. Can not you answer that question yes or no ? 

A. I don't know whether he has changed his mind, 
I am not the interpreter of the President's conscience 
or my own. 

Q. Then you don't know? 

A. And I never impute or never made it a point to 
give bad motives to people. 

Q. You don't know? 

A. I don't know anything about his motives. 

Q. You haven't imputed bad motives to the pluto- 
crats throughout this pamphlet? 

A. I don't think so, I think I am characterizing 
their actions. 

Q. Did not you tell us a little while ago you didn't 
think plutocrats were in business for anything except 
what they could get out of it? 

A. I think that the capitalist system is influenced 
often and mostly by profits, and I think the plutocrats 
as a whole are influenced similarly under a capitalistic 
system. There seems to be no difference between 
them in that way. 

Q. And that is the only thing? 

A. That is the major factor in controlling their 
decisions. 

Q. Is not that the only factor? 

A. Certainly not. 

Q. There are certain other factors? 

A. There are certain other factors, but that is the 
major factor: the economic factor is usually the major 
factor in controlling public affairs. 

Q. Now in the next chapter we deal with "patri- 
ots" and on page 12 you say : "The price of flags rose 
rapidly. Nevertheless the workers by hundreds of 
thousands contributed," that all being in quotation 

marks, "to provide flags for the establishments in 

which they were employed. Men were discharged 

127 



when they refused to make such contributions." How 
many instances now to your personal observation do 
you know of men who were discharged from employ- 
ment because they refused to contribute toward the 
buying of a flag? 

A. I knew of three men in one department of one 
factory ; I knew of several scattered instances in other 
shops and factories. 

Q. Well, how many would you say, three men in 
one department? 

A. Perhaps a dozen instances come to my mind, 
but this says that "men were discharged" and if two 
of them had been discharged, that would have justified 
that statement. 

Q. You think that statement was then justified by 
that? 

A. I certainly do, if two only had been discharged. 
"Two" is "men." 

Q. Literally you are accurate. Now in the next 
paragraph, doctor, you say: "The business interests 
were in clover. After years of unpopularity, after 
being forced to endure investigation, criticism and 
antagonistic legislation, after being condemned by 
even the conservative element in public life as a 
menace to American progress and well being." Will 
you name some of the members of the conservative 
element in public life who denounced the business 
interests as a menace to American progress and well 
being? Give us the conservative ones, please. 

A. I would say Mr. Cummins, Mr. Borah and Mr. 
Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson — particularly in those 
phrases that I quoted from him yesterday. 

O. And those were the men whom you regarded as 
the members of the conservative element in public 
life? 

A. Decidedly conservative. I would not call them 

128 



Bourbons or Tories, but they are decidedly conserva- 
tive. 

Q. And a little later you say: "The plutocratic 
brand of patriotism won the endorsement of the 
press," enumerating a number of others. This "pluto- 
cratic brand of patriotism/' I wish you would dis- 
tinguish that from the democratic brand of patriotism. 

A. The plutocratic brand of patriotism was the 
brand that made patriotism, loyalty to imperialistic 
designs and the imperialistic policies, and having en- 
tered on this propaganda campaign, it was one of the 
avenues toward imperialism, and plutocrats and 
patriotism mean loyalty to imperialistic policy and in 
my judgment that is not patriotism at all. 

Q. Then it is your judgment that the patriotism 
advocated by the preparedness advocates, and the 
patriotism advocated after we entered the war, by the 
president, was this plutocratic brand of patriotism, 
that is, a patriotism devoted to imperialistic policies of 
this Government? 

A. That brand of patriotism which is satisfactory 
to J. P. Morgan & Company and the Standard Oil 
Company and the United States Steel Corporation, is 
plutocratic patriotism, and that was the brand to 
which I am referring, and it is not the brand to which 
I adhere or subscribe. 

Q. That was also the brand that the country 
adopted generally? 

A. That was the brand ; yes, sir. 

Q. That is the imperialistic brand, imperialistic 
ideas? 

A. The imperialistic — the war is a part of the im- 
perialistic policy. 

Q. That is your idea then, that the support of the 
war, just as the country has given it, is in support of 
a war carrying out an imperialistic policy? 

129 



A. Yes, the policy of imperialism. As far as the 
rank and file of the people is concerned, they were 
simply patriotic and ignorant, they were patriotic and 
enthusiastic, and they did not understand what they 
were trying to support. 

Q. Now on the next page you say, at the bottom 
of the page : 

"The American plutocracy was magnified, deified 
and consecrated to the task of making the world safe 
for democracy. The brigands had turned saints, and 
were conducting a campaign to raise $100,000,000 for 
the Red Cross." 

Did you contribute to the Red Cross? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Either before we went into the war or after? 

A. I never contribute to any private or philanthro- 
pic or charitable institution. I regard philanthropy 
and charity in every form as merely making the great 
crimes, the crying crimes of the capitalistic system 
more endurable, and I do not care to help make it any 
more endurable. I regard the Red Cross as a method 
of making war more endurable and I do not care to 
make war more endurable, because it is a crime. 

Q. Was it your idea, — will you say that this cam- 
paign was directed by H. P. Davison, one of the lead- 
ing members of the firm of J. P. Morgan & Company 
— was it your idea that his service in directing this 
campaign was in pursuance of the plutocracy's con- 
spiracy to draw us into the war? 

A. No, sir. I make the point through this pamph- 
let that the business interests fought for the war, and 
when the war came on, the leading business men of 
the country were put in charge of all of the important 
ventures in which we were engaged, and this is one of 
the ventures. 

Q. Wasn't this before we went into the war that 

130 



Mr. Davison took charge of the Red Cross? 

A. No, I cannot answer that, I know he was in 
it after we went into the war also. He may have taken 
charge at any time before we went into the war. 
That would merely prove that plutocracy was behind 
the Red Cross, knowing that the firm of J. P. Morgan 
& Company were engaged in these big business ven- 
tures. That was a big venture in the Red Cross, as 
the Red Cross is interested in this war and Big Busi- 
ness is interested in the Red Cross as Big Business is 
interested in the Charity Organization Society and 
other philanthropic endeavors. 

Q. On the next page, on page 14, in the third sen- 
tence, under "Armed Neutrality" you say: 

"Meanwhile the British fleet blockaded Germany, 
closed the North Sea, sowed it with mines, and refused 
to permit American manufacturers to sell goods to the 
Central Powers. This constituted a brazen violation 
of international law." 

Was the blockade — did you mean by that that you 
declared that the blockade was a brazen violation of 
international law? 

A. No, but to sow the North Sea with mines was 
a violation, as I understand international law. 

Q. How do you know that those mines were sowed 
there by the British fleet? 

A. Well, you w r ill find an excellent summary of 
that according to the facts contained in the speech of 
Senator LaFollette on April 4th, also in the speech of 
General Sherwood, about that same time. I have the 
speech here. 

Q. That was the source of your information, was 
it? 

MR. STEDMAN : The President stated it. 

MR. BARNES: Mr. Stedman, please wait until 
you are under oath. 

131 



Q. That was the source of your information? 

A. I don't remember sir, but these are authorities 
upon which I would rest my case. 

Q. Those are the authorities upon which you made 
these statements? 

A. I just- — I stated I would be glad to rest my case 
on them. I cannot remember whether they were or 
not. I have the reference here. I have got the reference 
to the sources of information. 

Q. Then do you declare that the blockade on Ger- 
many was one of the brazen violations of international 
law? 

A. Yes, sir, I say so far as it was an effort to starve 
the civilian population, I believed it was a violation 
of international law as I understood it at that time. 

Q. Don't you know that in the Civil War, the 
North declared a blockade upon the South? 

A. Did they do that in an effort to starve the 
civilian population? 

Q. I am not on the stand. I would like to say "yes" 
to that, though. 

A. I don't know sir, but if it did, I believe that con- 
stituted a violation of the accepted common interna- 
tional law, and if the law does not cover that it cer- 
tainly should. 

Q. Then you say you believe this is a violation of 
international law? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What investigation did you make of the sub- 
ject before you wrote these words, "This constituted 
a brazen violation of international law?" 

A. Why, I stated two of my authorities, and I also 
had a couple of courses of it in college, in international 
law, and know something about it in a general way. 

132 



Q. Now, Mr. Nearing, referring to page 19 of the 
pamphlet, under the caption, of "The 2nd of April," 
you state that in the Spring of 1917, the credit of the 
Allies was strained to the breaking point and their 
resources were at very low ebb. 

What data did you have from which you came to 
that — upon which you based that statement? 

A. I referred yesterday to a couple of letters by 
a firm by the name of Henry Clews & Company. At 
this time, the submarine sinkings, if I remember, 
amounted to about 500,000 tons a month — they were 
sinking vessels faster than the British or the Allies 
were building them, and we heard tales at this time, 
that in England there was the necessity of putting the 
population on a bread card system. And I might say 
that I ordinarily read at least two financial papers 
every week, and tried to keep in pretty close touch 
with these changing situations. 

Q. On page 20, the second paragraph, you say: 
"The great neutral faced the test of possible commer- 
cial disaster. A hundred millions of people in the 
balance counted as nothing against the menace of eco- 
nomic losses." Did you mean by that, that Congress 
and President Wilson weighed economic losses 
against the lives of one hundred millions of people 
and decided in favor of avoiding economic losses? 

A. I should not say against the lives of one hun- 
dred million people. I should say against the well 
being of the people; and I believe that the economic 
considerations were primary. 

Q. That is, they weighed the economic considera- 
tions against the well being of one hundred millions of 
people and decided in favor of the economic considera- 
tions? 



133 



A. Well, I cannot say whether they weighed it or 
not, but I believe that the decision was in favor of 
the economic considerations and against the people. 

Q. Then you say, "The President without any 
authority from Congress, armed the merchant ships 
and gave Bernstorff his papers." As a matter of fact, 
President Wilson gave von Bernstorff his papers some 
time prior to that, in wdiich the armed neutrality ques- 
tion arose, didn't he? 

A. Yes. That should probably have preceded the 
other, preceded the giving of von Bernstorff his papers. 
That should probably have come in before the armed 
merchant ships subject. 

Q. It should not even have come in this section 
at all, should it, the "2nd of April?" 

A. Well, it is a section dealing w r ith the events that 
led up to that period. I think that it is the logical place 
for it, yes. 

O. Do you remember the date that von Bernstorff 
was given his papers? 

A. I think it was in February, if I am not mistaken. 

O. Then you say, "The business interests went 
wild with joy." 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the next portion of that, you quote from 
"Finance and Commerce" of February 7, 1917, the 
fact that flags were put out on Wall Street. As a matter 
of fact, don't you know that the Stock Market took 
a violent break at the time of the severance of diplo- 
matic relations with Germany? 

A. The fact to which I refer is contained in this 
quotation from "Finance and Commerce" a Wall 
Street publication. 

Q. Cannot you answ r er my question, doctor : don't 
you know, as a matter of fact, that the Stock Market 
had a violent break upon the announcement of the 

134 



severance of diplomatic relations with German)-? 

A. I do not. 

Q. Was it your idea that the reason why people 
put out the flags in Wall Street, was because they 
were glad that we were at war with Germany, or they 
wanted to show their loyalty to this country? 

A. I believed that the Wall Street interests, had 
been trying very hard for months to get into the war, 
and I believe that they were interested and missed no 
opportunity to expend energy in getting this country 
into the war. 

Q. But you do make the statement that the reason 
why Wall Street put out these flags was because it 
was glad? 

A. Yes, I say the business interests were wild with 
joy, and that confirmed it. 

Q. That showed their wildness of joy, by putting 
out their flags as you have indicated? 

A. Yes, as their publication says, "in twenty 
minutes Wall Street, from Trinity Church to South 
Street was bedecked like on a holiday. ,, It was a 
holiday for them. 

O. Columbus Avenue was also bedecked, wasn't 
it?~ 

A. Within twenty minutes? I don't know. 

Q. Within tw r enty-four hours? 

A. I don't know ; I was not in New York at that 
time. 

Q. You didn't raise any flags where you were? 

A. I beg your pardon? 

Q. Were not there any flags raised where you 
were ? 

A. Yes, but they were not in the way that is indi- 
cated by the quotation here. This is a financial paper, 
you know. 

O. Now, turn to page 22, or rather to the bottom 

135 



of page 21, you say: 

"On April 6th, with the passage of the Resolution 
declaring the existence of a state of war, the American 
people found themselves in war, after returning a 
party to power only five months before because it had 
'kept us out of war' " and then you say : 

"The people were not consulted, their wishes were 
not considered." 

"No popular referendum on the war was even pro- 
posed by the Administration." 

How many wars have we engaged in in our history? 

A. I think five major wars. 

Q. What were they? 

A. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the 
Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-Ameri- 
can War. 

Q. In the Revolutionary War was there any refer- 
endum, popular referendum as to whether we would 
go to war or not? 

A. I should say that a revolution is a popular refer- 
endum. 

Q. Well, what did you mean by a popular refer- 
endum, you meant a vote, didn't you? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Was there any vote taken in the Revolution 
that you know of, as to whether or not we should have 
a revolution? 

A. I do not see how you can vote on a revolution, 
Mr. Barnes. 

Q. How many — I am simply asking you whether 
you know? 

A. No, sir, I don't think so. 

Q. What was the next one? 

A. The War of 1812. 

Q. Was there a referendum on that? 

A. No, sir. 

136 



Q. What was the next oner 

A. The Civil War. 

Q. Any referendum on that? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. What was the next war? 

A. Spanish-American War. 

Q. Any referendum on that? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. You are familiar with the Constitution of the 
United States, aren't you? 

A. I am. 

Q. And that it does not provide for a referendum 
on the question of war? 

A. No ; neither does it prohibit it. 

Q. I asked you does it provide for a referendum? 

A. It does not provide for it and it does not pro- 
hibit it, sir. 

Q. Does not it provide that war shall be declared 
by Congress? 

A. Yes, it does so provide, but this was declared 
by the President. 

Q. Was not this war declared by Congress? 

A. No, sir, it was not declared by Congress. The 
President said on April 2nd, four days before Congress 
voted on the question, he said in his speech, "In the 
war in which we are now engaged." 

Q. But they did vote on it ultimately? 

A. Yes; ultimately, yes. 

Q. From what you know of it, what was the vote 
on it? 

A. About twenty to one, something like that, I 
understand. 

Q. Then it was voted for by the Constitutional 
representatives of the people of the United States? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In Congress assembled? 

137 



A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the war was declared in the constitutional 
manner by the representatives of the majority, the 
overwhelming majority of the representatives of the 
electorate, was it not? 

A. Yes, sir, but they however, decided it previous 
to a referendum. 

Q. Is there any provision in the Constitution for 
a referendum? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. About going to war? 

A. I thought this war was more democratic be- 
cause the President had said so. 

Q. I see. 

A. In other words, I believed that we might have 
shown our good faith in democracy, by having a refer- 
endum on it at this time. 

Q. In other words, in your opinion, Mr. Nearing, 
it would have been a nice thing, or a proper thing, or 
an expedient thing, or a good thing, or a democratic 
thing, to have declared this war in a different way 
than the other wars had been declared? 

A. In my judgment, if they had had a referendum 
at this time, the vote would have been very over- 
whelmingly against going into the war. 

O. In your judgment? 

A. Yes. 

Q. The duly authorized representatives in Con- 
gress assembled did not represent their constituents? 

A. I believed they did not represent the body of 
their constituents. 

Q. That is your judgment? 

A. They were whipped into line by methods which 
were notorious at the time. 

Q. That is your judgment? 

A. No, that is something that was expressed in the 

138 



newspapers, to«. 

Q. That is, newspaper stories? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now a little further clown on the same page you 
say, — speaking of the advisory commission to the coun- 
sel, that it was the business interests that had in charge 
this matter for the Government, you said, "The four 
business men, constituting the majority, will have 
practical charge of directing the expenditure of the 
billions of dollars that the American people will put 
into this war." 

Does that occur to you as a remarkable provision or 
an extraordinary provision, that business men should 
be in charge of the expenditure of money? 

A. No, unavoidably so under the present system. 

Q. And didn't you think that that was much better 
than having politicians have charge of it? 

A. As to whether the thing was better or worse, I 
would not judge. I would say it was not quite typical 
to let business men have charge, for I do not think 
that politicians were competent to have charge. 

Q. You think the business men were more com- 
petent? 

A. Undoubtedly they knew the game. 

Q. More competent, even, than college professors? 

A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. On the next pages, pages 23 and 24, you state 
there the circumstances in which they are placed at 
the head of these different committees, the committees 
on express, committees on shoe and leather industry, 
supplies, copper, etc., that the men selected to serve 
did serve with the heads of the great businesses and 
industries of that character. Don't you think that that 
was a better way of doing it than to have the office 
boys or the subordinates of those businesses in those 
positions? 

139 



A. I should have liked to have seen experts con- 
tinued in charge by the Government, and some expert 
engineers and expert scientists, non-controlling fac- 
tors in the business. I should have liked to see 
the labor unions represented in some cases, that would 
have been a more democratic way because business 
men make up about one-tenth of the population, and 
the working people about nine-tenths. 

Q. You did feel, however, did you not, that it was 
more apt to be an efficiently conducted war, purely 
from an efficient standpoint, understand, if the heads 
of these great concerns served in these capacities? 

A. Well, I should say that undoubtedly yes, as 
they would conduct the war better for their own pur- 
poses. There was a concrete instance brought up on 
the Standard Oil Company 

Q. I am speaking about the efficiency of the con- 
duct of the work. 

A. From the business standard, it would have un- 
doubtedly been more efficient. 

Q. That is what I mean. Now going over to the 
Liberty Loan chapter on page 26, you say: 

"Some day when all of the facts are collected, the 
story of the sale of the Liberty Loan, will be told, and 
it will be as hateful, as barbarous and as brutal as any 
event since the war contracts of the Spanish-American 
War." 

What investigation did you make of the facts sur- 
rounding the sale of the Liberty Loan? 

A. Well, sir, that was a particularly sore subject 
at that time in Toledo, where I was. I was in very 
close touch with the labor unions over there, and I 
knew a large number of the men and women who were 
compelled to buy bonds against their own wishes. 

Q. How many men did you know personally who 
were compelled to buy bonds against their wishes? 

140 



A. Well, I could not enumerate them. 

Q. Well, is there a dozen, or was there a dozen? 

A. Probably more than that. 

Q. Were there twenty? 

A. Possibly. I might also say that the New York 
"Call" had very extended stories at the time, describing 
such conditions. 

Q. You do not consider that an authority? 

A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. Well, were there one hundred which you knew 
personally, who were compelled to buy bonds? 

A. Probably not. 

Q. Probably not. How many were there subscrib- 
ers to the loan? 

A. Several millions. 

Q. Several millions. And you have only given us 
three instances here: one of a girl who worked as an 
expert at $100 a month. What was her name? 

A. I prefer not to state it. 

Q. You know her? 

A. I do. 

Q. Did she live in Toledo? 

A. In Pittsburgh. 

Q. Pittsburgh? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What does she work at? 

A. She was an expert on adding machines. 

Q. An expert on adding machines? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And she got $100 a month? 

A. I believe so. 

Q. And when she was approached she said if she 
had to buy a bond, she would give up her job? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Nobody ever said to her anything else on the 
subject? 

141 



A. Nothing more. 

Q. Was that in your opinion a sample of a "bar- 
barous and hateful" coercion by the capitalistic class? 

A. That was an excellent example of industrial 
tyranny, only it didn't work out. 

Q. Only it didn't work out. Now the next little 
girl was one who was working for $7 a week? 

A. Yes. 

Q. That was a pretty poor job? 

A. That was a Department Store job. 

Q. That is a pretty poor job? 

A. Pretty poor? That was about the average for 
a girl worker in the department stores. 

Q. Do you know that girl? 

A. I did not, but a friend of mine did know her in 
Cleveland. 

Q. And the friend of yours told you about it? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they took two dollars a week from that 
girl's salary? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From that magnificent salary of $7 a week they 
took the $2? 

A. She subscribed two dollars. 

Q. She subscribed two dollars? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And then one day they took all the rest of it, 
for the Red Cross? 

A. She subscribed to the Red Cross that week. 

Q. And she, I take it, with this magnificent job, 
continued to work because she was afraid of losing it? 

A. Yes, sir, she was rather a young girl, and for 
a girl of her age, and experience, $7 a week was good 
wages at that time. 

O. That was a good job, was it? 

A. Well, it was about $7 a week at that time, which 

142 



was about the average woman's wage. 

Q. And the next one was a man with a family, 
sick for three months, who was advised that it would 
be wise for him to buy a liberty bond? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know that man? 

A. I did, in Toledo. 

Q. Did you know who advised him? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did the man who advised him, advise him 
it was a good thing, or bad, or what was the circum- 
stances ? 

A. It was his immediate superior in his depart- 
ment. 

Q. He came to him and told him that it would be 
a good idea for him to buy a bond? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is that all? 

A. Bearing in mind, all the time, the fact that he 
had ever before him what had happened to other peo- 
ple who did not buy bonds, so he bought one. 

Q. So that in that instance the man who was his 
superior officer, or who was superior to him, came to 
him and said, "I think it would be a good idea for 
you to buy a bond?" 

A. Something to that general effect. 

Q. To the general effect? 

A. Yes, sir, that is the idea, and that is conversa- 
tion with the man who owns your job, remember that. 

Q. Did the man who gave him this advice, know- 
about the fact of his financial difficulties? 

A. I do not know. 

Q. So far as you know, he was not aware of the 
fact that this man was in debt, etc? 

A. These matters are not taken into consideration 
in these cases. 

143 



Q. And they are not taken into consideration by 
you in writing these things, in this pamphlet, are they, 
that is you didn't make any investigation of those cir- 
cumstances before writing this pamphlet? 

A. I don't get you. I don't understand your ques- 
tion. 

Q. I say, you did not make any investigation of the 
circumstances as to whether or not the man advised — 
the man who was advising this fellow to buy a bond, 
knew of the man's finances, his financial position? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Before you wrote the pamphlet? 

A. I did not. 

Q. So that you base this statement, practically, 
upon personal knowledge of possibly twenty to forty 
or possibly one hundred cases? 

A. And the stories that were being told. 

Q. Whereas the total number of subscribers were 
several millions? 

A. And the stories that were being told in the 
newspapers and the Socialist paper, and some of them 
were in the New York "Call," and other papers that 
were telling the truth at that time. 

Q. You believe everything that you read in the 
"Call?" 

A. I don't believe everything I read in any news- 
paper. 

Q. Not even in the "Call?" 

A. Not even in the "Call." 

Q. Well, you must have felt very sorry for these 
poor people all over the country who had been com- 
pelled to buy bonds? 

A. That is the reason I wrote this pamphlet. 

Q. You felt very sorry for them? 

A. I thought that they had been seriously imposed 
on, yes, sir. 

144 



Q. And yet you wanted the Government to repu- 
diate the bonds, didn't you? 

A. Repudiation of bonds 

Q. Didn't you want the Government to repudiate 
the Liberty Loan, and didn't you so testify this morn- 
ing? 

A. I made no such statement, I said simply that 
the Socialist Party believed in the repudiation of all 
forms of indebtedness, and any indebtedness that en- 
abled someone to live on other people's labors, and 
that included any form of indebtedness, whether pub- 
lic or private. 

Q. And that involved these people whom you were 
telling us about here, who were compelled to buy these 
bonds? And you would like to see a government in the 
United States, that would repudiate the First Liberty 
Loan, wouldn't you? 

MR. STEDMAN: I object. 

A. That loan and all loans, public and private. 

Q. In spite of the fact that that loan is held, as 
you have testified it was your belief, by millions of 
people who bought it under coercion? 

A. A tiny fraction of it is held by them, the vast 
majority of it is held by the rich people, in my judg- 
ment. 

These three and one-half per cent, bonds have been 
bought up in the past months by the rich people from 
those who originally bought them, bought up by these 
wealthy people for the purpose of escaping taxation. 

Q. And it was disposed of by these same people at 
a pretty good figure, wasn't it? 

A. Some of them were, I guess. 

Q. Now on the next page, you state: 

"When the Conscription Bill was introduced in the 
Congress, there was a general feeing throughout the 

145 



country that it would not pass. Even the press hesi- 
tated, so un-American was this bill, which clearly vio- 
lated the spirit of the Constitution, and the traditions 
of American life." 

Are you aware of the fact that the constitutionality 
of the Selective Draft Act has been sustained by every 
court before which it has been tried? 

A. I am sir, but that does not in any way change 
my opinion of the bill. 

Q. You, of course, are not trained in the law? 

A. No, sir, but I have read the Constitution. 

Q. You read to us yesterday from the speech by 
Daniel Webster, in the House of Representatives in 
1814? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Judge Mayer brought out that that speech 
was made during a debate, the first day of the debate, 
I believe, upon that bill? 

A. Yes, sir. And Daniel Webster told them that 
if they passed the bill he would go back and tell his 
constituents to refuse to support it. 

Q. He did? 

A. He did. 

Q. Were you under the impression you were fol- 
lowing in the steps of Daniel Webster during the Sum- 
mer of 1917? 

A. No, sir, I was not under the impression that I 
was impersonating Webster. But he was interpreting 
the Constitution, as I understood the Constitution, and 
I thought he was a good constitutional lawyer, and 
knew what he was talking about, and it sounded 
sensible to me, and I believed that it was sensible. 

Q. Do you think it is the proper action for a man 
to take, to go back to his constituents and tell them 
not to obey anything that has become a law, that has 
been passed by Congress? 

146 



A. It is entirely up to the man himself, what he 
shall do. 

Q. I say, do you approve of that? 

A. Do you mean, did I approve of it in Daniel 
Webster's case? 

Q. Yes. 

A. If I felt that way, I would do exactly the same 
thing, in other words, I would live up to my beliefs. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. The question that the District Attorney asked 
you was whether you favored that position, if it was 
so taken by Mr. Webster? 

A. I answered, sir, that I believed that a man must 
live up to his convictions, and that if Mr. Webster 
believed that, it was up to him to go and do it. If you 
ask me whether I would go home and urge my 
constituents to violate the law, in that case I answer 
I cannot tell ; as I feel at present I would not. 

BY MR. BARNES: 

Q. Let us have that speech of Daniel Webster. 
I want to see the language he used. 

A. "I would ask, sir, whether the supporters of these 
measures have well weighed the difficulties of their under- 
taking. Have they considered whether it will be found 
easy to execute laws which bear such marks of despotism 
on their front, and which will be so productive of every 
thought and degree of misery in their execution? For one, 
sir, I hesitate not to say that they cannot be executed. No 
law professedly passed for the purpose of compelling a ser- 
vice in the regular army, not any law, which under the color 
of military draft shall compel men to serve in the army, 
not for the emergencies mentioned in the constitution, but 
for longer periods than for the general objects of the war, 
can be carried into effect. The operation of measures thus 
unconstitutional and illegal, ought to be prevented by a 
resort to other measures which are both constitutional and 
legal. It will be the solemn duty of the state governments 
to protect their own authority over their own militia, and 
to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. 

147 



These are among the objects for which the state govern- 
ments exist, and their highest obligations bind them to the 
preservation of their own rights and liberties of their people. 
I express the sentiments here, sir, because I shall express 
them to my constituents. Bdth they and myself live under 
a constitution which teaches us that 'the doctrine of firm 
resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, 
slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of man- 
kind* with the same earnestness with which I now exhort 
you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to 
exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the 
security of their liberties/' 

And as I understand that, he meant that he would 
exhort his state government to oppose the national 
government in the enforcement of this law. 

Q. Well, did you understand him to mean by that, 
that he would exhort them to refuse to obey the law, 
or counsel them to fight it in a legal manner through 
the courts? 

THE WITNESS: May I see the pamphlet? 
(handed witness). 

"Laws, sir, of this nature can create nothing but oppo- 
sition. If you scatter them abroad like the fabled 
serpent's teeth, they will spring up into armed men. A 
military force cannot be raised in this manner but by the 
means of a military force. If the administration has found 
that it cannot form an army without conscription, it w 11 
find, if it venture on these experiments, that it cannot en- 
force conscription without an army." 

Now if that does not support my statement, then 
the further statement that I read awhile ago, that 
"these laws, if passed, cannot be executed," seems to 
me does warrant the statement that I made that Mr. 
Webster proposed to go back home and agitate for 
resistance to this law. 

Q. Now on page 29 you quote from the Chicago 
Tribune of June 6th, the day following registration, 
to the effect that the "draft success puts new life in 
New York market." Did you follow the prices on the 

148 



Stock Market, or do you follow them, or have you fol- 
lowed them during this period of time, from 1906 on 
down to date? 

A. To the present time? 

Q. Yes. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are aware, are you not, that prices of 
stocks reached their highest point about the 1st of 
December 1916? 

A. Thereabouts, yes, sir. 

Q. And that during December, Secretary Lansing 
made a statement, that we were on the verge of war. 
Do you remember that? 

A. I don't recall that. No, sir. 

Q. And that there was a break in the market im- 
mediately following that statement? 

A. I don't recall that incident. No, sir. 

Q. Now is it not true there was a break in the 
market about the 2nd of February, at the time of the 
severing of the diplomatic relations? 

A. I quoted this from the Wall Street Digest, yes- 
terday, "The upward movement in the price of stocks 
dates from the day that the German Ambassador at 
Washington, was handed his passports and although 
there have been slight temporary reactions, the move- 
ment has been fairly continuous from that day to this." 

Q. Was not there a break in the Stock Market, 
quite a violent break on the date that the German Am- 
bassador was handed his passports? 

A. This, that I was quoting you here, was from the 
official organ of the Street, and tells of the general 
tendency of the stock. 

Q. Was not there a violent break on that date, and 
was not there a drop of ten points in Steel? 

A. I don't remember that. 

Q. You don't remember that? 

149 



A. I don't remember that, I am simply quoting- y©u 
from this statement here. 

Q. On page 39, the second paragraph, you say: 

"By July, 1917, the billboard enlistment campaign was 
couched in such words as 'The Regulars are in France, 
Join them Now/ 'Enlist immediately so as to fight on 
German and not on the United States soil.' The German 
autocracy was on the defensive; the American plutocracy 
had become the aggressor. The regular army had already 
been transported four thousand miles and a conscript army 
of a million men was in process of formation to wage an 
aggressive war in the interests of the British ruling classes." 

Now, up to this point, as I understood your argu- 
ment, the war w r as in the interest of the American 
ruling classes. Do you mean by that, that they were 
mistaken, and it was for the British ruling classes, or 
do you mean by that, that they were all working to- 
gether? 

A. I should say, sir, that the American banking and 
financial interests came to the rescue of the British 
banking and financial interests. 

Q. So that the American plutocracy had got us 
into this war and did it to help the British ruling 
classes? 

A. Yes, sir, they came to the rescue of the Birtish 
financiers when they were at the breaking point, as 
I stated at an earlier section. Certainly it was a dis- 
tinct help to the ruling classes of Great Britain when 
we joined hands with them. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. Let me inject a question : When you wrote this 
about this advertising as seen on these various bill- 
boards, where was that? 

A. That was in Toledo. 

Q. I say, you had seen these billboards? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those billboards, putting the matter briefly, 
were appealing to enlist? 

150 



A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is to say, to enter voluntarily, as distin- 
guished from entering under the Selective Service 
Law? 

A. Yes, sir. 

O. And were there many such billboards in 
Toledo ? 

A. Well, they had one by the old post office and 
one by the new post office. 

Q. In other words, it was pretty generally plac- 
arded? 

A. Quite generally. 

O. Did they have recruiting stations? 

A. Oh, yes. 

Q. With men in the service of the Government, 
endeavoring to get volunteers? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you hear addresses in public places by 
civilians and soldiers, appealing to persons to enlist? 

A. I don't think there were any such meetings 
going on, no. 

Q. There was a general campaign? 

A. There was a billboard campaign. 

Q. All over the town? 

A. All over the city, and the reason that I put it 
in here was because it was a campaign requesting men 
to enlist for the foreign war. 

Q. And before you wrote "The Great Madness" did 
you see similar billboards in other parts of the coun- 
try that you were in, do you claim that? 

A. Probably, but I do not remember. 

Q. You have no doubt they were in other parts of 
the country? 

A. I presume there were, yes. 

BY MR. BARNES: 

Q. Now the next chapter is on page 40, entitled, 

151 



"Root and Balfour," and you speak there of — it is near 
the bottom of the page — "Elihu Root was sent to the 
democracy of Russia to warn them not to go too far 
in the direction of their democratic ambitions and 
ideals." You are referring there to the commission 
that was sent over by the Federal Government, the 
Federal Commission? 

A. Yes, sir, to the Revolutionary Government. 

Q. One of the members of the Commission was a 
Socialist was he not, Mr. Russell? 

A. He was, yes, sir. 

Q. Now he was the candidate of the Socialist Party 
for the Presidency of the United States, wasn't he? 

MR. STEDMAN: I beg your pardon, it was for 
the Governorship of New York State. 

Q. The Governorship of New York State? 

A. He was. 

Q. At any rate he was a prominent Socialist? 

A. He was, yes, sir. 

Q. And what information or data did you have, 
what inside "dope" as we might say, Mr. Nearing, on 
which you based your statements that Root was sent 
there to warn them not to go too far in the direction 
of their democratic ambitions and ideals? 

A. Well, I had the speeches that Root and the 
other members of the Commission are reported to have 
made after they had got over there. 

Q. Now at page 42 you were telling us what the 
American business interests had won, you say : "They 
had won the right to send a million Americans to the 
trenches of France to fight for the poor Belgians, for 
Lombard Street, Wall Street, and King George of 
England." Lombard Street — what do you infer by 
that? 

A. I mean the financial section of England. 

Q. That is the Wall Street of England, I suppose? 

152 



A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the next, you say in the next paragraph : 

"They had established a spirit that permitted chil- 
dren to go back into the factories from which years of 
incessant labor had rescued them; women to take 
men's jobs at a fraction of the wage, and the standards 
surrounding the labor of men to be lowered/' 

Now will you please tell us what data you based 
that on? 

A. I based that on the data — well, there are three 
different statements there. 

Q. All right, take the first one : "Children to go 
back into the factories. " 

A. The first statement, or rather the — yes, the first 
statement was based on the fact that immediately after 
war was declared there w r as a general campaign in- 
augrated all over the country in the big industrial 
states, to abrogate the law, set aside the laws regard- 
ing the work of women and children, and the Federal 
Children's Bureau and the National Child Labor Com- 
mittee both went into that question and both of them 
made reports regarding the increase of the employ- 
ment of children. 

Concerning the second statement regarding the 
wages of women, the committee presented data of the 
situation in that regard, showing that women entered 
into these various situations at a wage scale much 
lower than that which was the standard wage of the 
men. 

And the statement as regards the excessive hours of 
labor and the like, referred to war work that was being 
done overtime. 

Q. Now are you familiar with the article in the 
American Labor Year Book of 1917-1918 at pages 16, 
17 to 20, by Mr. Solon DeLeon, which covers these 
particular questions? 

A. No, sir, I am not familiar with it. 
153 



Q. Well, are you familiar with the attitude taken 
by President Wilson and by the Federal authorities 
with regard to this lowering of standards of labor, and 
the employment of child labor in the factories, and the 
use of women at a fraction of the wage? You are 
familiar with that? 

A. As I recall, they were strongly opposed to it. 

Q. They did successfully oppose it? 

A. They did not successfully oppose it. 

Q. They did as far as the Federal enactment was 
concerned? 

A. They did not oppose it as far as the factories 
were concerned. 

Q. Did not they as far as the Federal law was con- 
cerned? 

A. That I do not know ; but I know that statistics 
have recently appeared covering that particular period, 
showing that child labor has increased decidedly dur- 
ing the war. I might also say that the minimum 
standards of the working classes have been lowered 
also. 

Q. Do you know there has been any systematic 
lowering of it? 

A. There has, yes, sir. 

Q. In the factories, do you mean? 

A. Yes, the child labor, especially in factories, has 
increased greatly. 

Q. Are you aware of the fact that Governor Whit- 
man of New York vetoed a bill, the Brown Bill, on that 
same subject? 

A. I don't remember when he vetoed the bill. 

Q. Then this article in the American Labor Year 
Book which covers the period from March to Septem- 
ber, is not, or is it, in your opinion, an exhaustive 
statement of the legislation on these points ? 

A. Well, sir, I have not read it and I cannot say. 

154 



Q. How many states were there that altered their 
laws to your knowledge? 

A. That I do not remember. 

Q. Well, what States did? 

A. I have not the data, I could not give you any 
particular case. 

O. Of course the labor authorities did oppose it 
vigorously, did they not? 

A. Oh, yes, vou mean the labor unions? 

Q. Yes/ 

A. Well, I assume so, yes. 

Q. Well, they did, didn't they? Don't you remem- 
ber they did? 

A. Well, there was opposition, I don't remember 
whether they did it. 

Q. Did you know that on April 7th, the Council 
of National Defense approved resolutions drawn up 
by the advisory committee on labor, of its advisory 
commission, urging upon the legislatures of the States 
as well as all administrative agencies charged with the 
enforcement of labor and health laws, the great duty 
of rigorously maintaining the existing safeguards as 
to the health and the welfare of the workers ; but also 
urging upon the legislatures that before final adjourn- 
ment they delegate to the Governors of their respec- 
tive States, the power to suspend or modify restric- 
tions contained in their labor laws, when requested by 
the Council? 

MR. STEDMAN: You are reading ;from page 
what? 

MR. BARNES : Page 16, at the bottom of the page. 

O. Did you know that? 

A. No, sir, I don't remember this, not these spe- 
cific details. 

Q. Did you know that on April 23rd the "Secre- 
tary of Labor Wilson had a conference of Cabinet 

155 



Officers and Labor representatives, explained the posi- 
tion of the Council of National Defense to be that the 
standards that have been established by law, by mutual 
agreement or by custom, should not be changed at this 
time." Did you know that? 

A. I said that I knew that the Government took 
that position, I didn't remember the specific details. 

Q. Did you know that Secretary Daniels had taken 
the same position? 

A. I do not remember the special officials. I know 
the Government officially took that position. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. Prior to your writing the publication, "The 
Great Madness," did you know of any law that had 
passed the Congress of the United States which in 
any manner had changed the wage standards of labor- 
ing people? 

A. No, I believe Congress passed no such law. 

BY MR. BARNES: 

Q. As a matter of fact, Congress did pass a Child 
Labor Law, did it not, which was afterwards declared 
unconstitutional ? 

A. I think that was passed before the 1916 Elec- 
tion, because I think that the Democrats used that in 
their election propaganda. 

Q. I think you are right. It was before — between 
1914 and 1916? 

A. Yes, sir, I think about in 1916. 

Q. Now, at the bottom of page 43, Mr. Nearing, 
you say, "Today, in all parts of the United States they 
are banding themselves together politically and in- 
dustrially. They are organizing. They propose, to 
make the world safe for democracy. " Whom did 
you mean by "they"? 

A. That is answered in the paragraph above — 
"The People of the United States." 

Q. The people of the United States? 
156 



A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And to what political and industrial bands or 
organizations do you refer when you said they were 
organizing? 

A. Why, I was referring to the growth at that time 
of the Socialist Party in membership, it was growing 
at that time, and to the growth of the trade unions, 
they had grown, and they were growing a great deal 
at that time, and have grown very much since, also 
to the growth of the Non-Partisan League, the Farm- 
ers' movement, which was growing very rapidly at 
that time. 

Q. Now you say at the top of the next page, "The 
struggle must begin in the United States." Did you 
mean by that, that the pressure of the plutocrats in 
the United States was the first step that the people 
were to take to make the world safe for democracy? 

A. Yes, sir; if we are going to have democracy in 
the world, we have got to begin at home and have it 
at home. 

Q. Did you mean that they should undertake that 
immediately or that they should wait until the end of 
the war? 

A. Well, in my judgment, the war is an incident 
to the economic conflict, because I believed the work- 
ing class had to keep on, during the war and before 
the war and after the war, in preserving their own 
standards and safeguarding their own rights. 

Q. You mean then that they should undertake that 
while the war was on, or whether they should post- 
pone it until the war was over? 

A. Certainly, they should work at it all the time. 
The problem of establishing industrial democracy is 
a problem that goes on continually with the wage 
earner; it has gone on before the war, it has gone on 
during the war and it has gone on since. 

157 



Q. And when you sent this manuscript, "The Great 
Madness" to the Rand School, you realized if it was 
published, it would be distributed and circulated, 
didn't you? Throughout the country, didn't you? 

A. Certainly. 

Q. And that it would come into the hands of men 
who were subject to induction into the army under 
the Selective Service Act, men between twenty-one 
and thirty? 

A. I suppose so. 

Q. And you wanted to persuade your readers to 
your own point of view about the war, didn't you ? 

A. I wanted to present to my readers my opinion 
regarding the whole incident of the war, yes, sir. 

Q. And you did that for the purpose of persuading 
them? 

A. If they saw it my way, I expected them to ac- 
cept it. 

O. And you wanted them to accept it, didn't you? 

A. Yes. 

Q. You wanted them to believe this way, that this 
was an unjust war, didn't you? 

A. I wanted them to believe that this was a cap- 
italist war. 

Q. And that it was an unjust war? 

A. As all wars are unjust, yes. 

Q. You wanted them to believe that it was waged 
in the interests of selfish plutocratic classes, didn't 
you? 

A. Primarily so, yes, sir. 

Q. And that it was not a w T ar to make the world 
safe for democracy, was not that what you wanted 
them to believe, that it was not a war to make the 
world safe for democracy? 

A. I did not then believe that it was a war to make 
the world safe for democracy, and I wanted other 

158 



people to see that it was not a war to make the world 
safe for democracy. 

Q. You wanted these people to read your pamph- 
lets? 

A. I wanted the people to read the pamphlets and 
realize that it was a war that was being continued by 
the plutocrats, and for their own selfish ends to fasten 
their hold on the American people. 

Q. And you used the best arguments that occurred 
to you to prove your point? 

A. Yes, sir, I got the best data I could. 

Q. Did it occur to you that you might persuade 
some of your readers to your point of view? 

A. I hoped somebody, after they read it, would see 
my point of view. 

Q. You thought they would, didn't you? 

A. They usually do, some of them. 

Q. You thought your arguments were pretty good, 
didn't you? 

A. I still think so, and I did then. 

Q. Was it your belief, or was it not your belief, 
that if it might persuade, that is, if you might persuade 
by your pamphlets, some of these people to your point 
of view with regard to the war, men who were within 
the draft age, and who were subsequently inducted 
into the army, that they would become insubordinate? 

A. I should say on the contrary, sir, that the mil- 
lions of socialists who fought in this war, and who 
held that view, were not any less insubordinate than 
the other fellows, certainly not more so. 

Q. Yes, but I know, they were not American sol- 
diers, were they? 

A. No, but a Socialist is a Socialist, whether he 
speaks American or French. The Socialists w r ho had 
been fighting in the war, to my knowledge, were just 
as reliable as the other fellows they were fighting with 

159 



in the war. I see no reason to believe that a man who 
had these convictions would make any worse soldier — 
I think he would make a whole lot better brother for 
the great brotherhood that is coming later on in the 
world — but I do not know that he would be any worse 
as a soldier in this country. 

Q. Don't you think and didn't you think that a 
man believing this way, that the war was a selfish 
capitalistic war for the capitalistic interests, and that 
he was being brought into it, that he would be apt 
to be disloyal to his country, in the sense of the word 
ordinarily used, of the word disloyalty? 

A. On the contrary, I know many men who were 
drafted and went, and others that certainly had that 
point of view in their minds. 

Q. And you did hope, that by reading this, they 
would get your point of view about the war then, and 
then you say you think that they would be just as 
loyal soldiers? 

A. I was not attempting to make either loyal sol- 
diers or disloyal soldiers. 

Q. I didn't ask you that sir, I asked you whether 
you gave any thought to the subject? 

A. I don't recall that I did. 

Q. Then you did not think anything about it? 

A. I don't recall that I did. 

Q. Did you not believe, Mr. Nearing, that this 
pamphlet would probably fall into the hands of men 
who were debating as to whether or not they would 
enlist in the army, voluntarily? 

A. I had no such knowledge either way. 

Q. Didn't you think about it? 

A. I do not recall that I did. 

Q. That never occurred to you, is that right, it 
never occurred to you? 

A. I don't recall that it did. I might say again, 

160 



Mr. Barnes, that I wrote this pamphlet, to try to edu- 
cate people. I had no particular point of view with 
regard to men or persuading soldiers or anybody else, 
I wanted the people to understand what was going on. 

Q. But you would feel, would you not, that if this 
were to fall into the hands of a man who w r as con- 
templating enlisting, was turning the matter over in 
his mind, and he was persuaded by your arguments, 
he would not enlist, you feel that way about it? That 
would be its natural effect, wouldn't it? 

MR. STEDMAN: I want to object to that as in- 
competent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper. 

THE COURT: He may ask him if that was his 
belief. Did you so believe? 

THE WITNESS: I don't recall that I had any 
such belief, no, sir. In other words, I was not aiming 
this pamphlet particularly at the army. If I had been, 
I would have printed a different kind of leaflet. I 
would not have sold it through the Rand School where 
it went out for general circulation to a very small num- 
ber of people, about 20,000. 

Q. Went out to a group of people, however, who 
were subject to the draft? 

A. Possibly. I was not in a position to know 
whether they were or not, sir. 

Q. To a group of people who would be eligible to 
enlist? 

A. Possibly. I was not in a position to know that 
either, any more than I would know whether one of 
my text-books would be read by man, woman or child, 
whether they were under forty years of age, or over 
forty years of age. 

Q. Do not you know, that most of the Socialists in 
this country are between the ages of 18 and 40 years? 

A. I have not ever seen a statement as to their 
ages. 

161 



O. Don't you know that as a matter of fact, that 
most of the Socialists in this country are between 18 
and 45? 

A. Most of the people in this country are between 
18 and 45. 

Q. And most of the people who are in the circle 
of your acquaintance are between the ages of 18 and 
45? 

A. I am also between 18 and 45. 

Q. And so am I. 

A. And most of your friends are between 18 and 
45 then, I may assume. 

Q. You still feel that you were right in the position 
you took, in this pamphlet, Mr. Nearing? 

A. I certainly believe — I do believe that the Amer- 
ican plutocracy wanted the war, and they advocated 
it, and made the war, and they had the war, and it was 
an imperialistic war, for the purpose of enhancing the 
imperialistic point of view in the United States. 

Q. You still believe, do you, that you were right 
in the position that you took in this pamphlet? 

A. That was the position of the pamphlet. 

Q. Cannot you answer the question yes or no, 
then? 

A. Well, the trouble in answering a question like 
that yes or no, is that my own position in the pamphlet 
may be is not clear, and I wanted to state my position 
in the pamphlet. 

Q. You think that your position in the pamphlet 
is not clear? 

A. It seemed to me that it was, sir. 

Q. I think it is very clear. You still believe you 
were right in the efforts you made to spread this view 
among the people during the Summer of 1917? 

A. Yes, sir, I believe that is the correct view, for 
the people of the United States to take. 

162 



Q. You think you were right in spreading; it? 

MR. STEDMAN : He has said so. 

THE COURT: He has not yet. 

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I thought I said yes. 

O. Well, would you again, in case we had another 
war, advise them in the same way? 

MR. STEDMAN: Oh, I object to that as highly 
speculative as to whether he would do it again. 

THE COURT: Objection sustained. 

MR. BARNES: That is all. 

THE COURT: I will ask you a few questions so 
that you may on redirect ask him any questions that 
vou desire. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. Now, did you follow, that is, with reasonable 
care, the different events, such as the declaration of 
w r ar and the passage of the selective draft act, etc.? 

A. Yes, sir, I followed them very carefully. 

Q. Very well. Now, of course, you realized, when 
you wrote this pamphlet, that war had been declared, 
on the 6th day of April 1917? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You remembered, when the selective draft law 
was passed and became an act? Perhaps I can help 
you. Was it May 18, 1917? 

A. Yes, I remember the 5th day of June was the 
registration — yes, May, 1917. 

Q. And you remember that under the statute, the 
5th day of June, 1917, was designated as the day for 
registration of those subject to the draft under the 
Presidential rules and proclamations? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that the method of draft was, to briefly 
state it, choose the men by numbers which were 
chosen by lot? 

A. Yes, sir. 

\W 



Q. And that there was an elaborate machinery, 
which was arranged by the appropriate federal offi- 
cials in respect to the induction of men into the army, 
that is to say, local boards, district boards, and the 
Provost Marshal's rules and regulations, and the like? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And do you know when the actual induction 
into the army began under the selective draft law? 

A. I do not remember, sir. 

Q. Well, you recall it began, if my recollection 
is right, in September, 1917, is that correct? 

MR. BARNES : I think it is in August, probably 
the end of August or beginning of September. 

Q. Well, August or September, then you remem- 
ber that, do you not? 

A. I noticed it at the time ; I do not recall the date. 

Q. Now intervening the time, between the passage 
of the Selective Draft Act and the time that you wrote 
"The Great Madness" had you noticed that there were 
appeals for the enlistment and volunteer service — I 
think you gave some statement about that. 

A. I noticed it, yes. 

Q. And during that summer, where were you? In 
the early part in Toledo and in the later part in Chau- 
tauqua, New York? 

A. Yes. 

Q. At some time, to some extent you knew, I as- 
sume, that the Government was doing all in its power 
to get men to go into the army forces, the military and 
the naval, through the agency of voluntary enlistment, 
did you not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that method was carried out by the bill- 
board advertisement type of campaign that you have 
referred to, and by public meetings, was it not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

164 



Q. And at these public meetings, various persons 
spoke to the point of endeavoring to have persons vol- 
unteer and enlist? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know that while there was a general 
concurrence in spirit and action throughout the coun- 
try, of obedience to the Selective Service Act, that 
there were some who were disposed to dispute it? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you kept in touch, and any track of the 
public trials of those who were charged with disobedi- 
ence in one form or another of that act? 

A. Why, I don't recall that any came before the 
writing of this pamphlet. Of course, I have observed 
the conscientious objector since, — I don't know 
whether the issue had been raised then or not. 

Q. Well, there were some, but that is neither here 
nor there. Well, did you know that there were those 
throughout the country who were not obeying the 
law, but who were acting in opposition to the act? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did you have all of this information to 
which I have referred in my questions, and which you 
have answered, before you, or in your mind, at the 
time that you wrote this pamphlet? 

A. Probably, yes, sir. 

Q. I mean to say, you were fully cognizant of that 
situation? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did you have any knowledge as to whether 
there were any males of any age, who were in the 
mental position of doubt in regard as to what course 
they should pursue in respect of service in the army? 

MR. STEDMAN : That I want to object to as in- 
competent. 

THE COURT: He can say yes or no. 

165 



MR. STEDMAN: Exception. 

A. Yes, sir, I did know that fact. 

Q. Had any such persons come within your per- 
sonal observation? 

A. They had. 

Q. That is to say, }'OU know actually, male human 
beings who were, to put the matter in colloquial lan- 
guage, "on the fence" as to service? 

A. Yes, sir. 

MR. STEDMAN: Just a moment, do not answer 
until I get a chance to object to the questions, espe- 
cially those that relate to special incidents. I would 
like to have the benefit of an objection to that last 
answer if I may have, which I suppose will be over- 
ruled and then I would like the benefit of an exception. 
I am objecting to the special instance that may be in 
a man's mind. 

THE COURT: Very well. We will put it gen- 
erally. 

Q. What was your general information, of action 
taken by John Jones, or by Peter Smith? 

MR. STEDMAN : The point I have in mind is this, 
that a man might know someone among his acquaint- 
ances, he might be writing a book, and he might im- 
personate that man, and that would suggest the answer 
to any such suggestion as that. 

THE COURT : I think you may be right as to that 
and that is the reason I changed the question to the 
general question. 

Q. Was it your belief at the time that there were 
those in the country, repeating the colloquial expres- 
sion, who were "on the fence" as to whether or not 
they should volunteer and enlist in the armed forces 
of the United States? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is your belief? 

166 



A. Yes, sir, that there were such people. 

Q. That there were such people? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know whether or not there were people 
who were, for one reason or another, resisting the 
Selective Service Act, refusing, upon one ground or 
another, to obey its provisions, insofar as induction 
into the service was concerned? 

A. Yes, I remember that particularly in the South- 
west. 

O. You knew there were such? 

A. There was such agitation. 

O. By knowing, of course, I mean in this case in- 
formation that you gathered from reading the papers, 
of conversations, or any other method of getting in- 
formation ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you believe at this time, that there were 
people in the United States, who were resisting, I 
don't mean resisting by argument, I mean actually re- 
sisting by refusal to obey the selective service act upon 
one ground or another? 

A. Yes, sir, there were such, I believe, particularly 
in the Southwest. There was a great deal of agitation 
at that time. 

Q. Did you have any such information, that is, of 
such position on the part of the persons subject to the 
provisions of the act in other parts of the country? 

A. I think the Becker trial took place in New York, 
I don't remember when. I remember that specifically, 
that is a case, but I do not remember whether there 
were any other illustrations that came up at that time 
or not. 

O. You are now referring to the trial of Becker 
and Kramer? 

A. Becker and Kramer. 

167 



Q. Do you remember any other public trial ? 

A. I suppose there were trials at the time, but I 
have forgotten. 

Q. There were, if I understand you correctly, at 
the time you wrote "The Great Madness" that is, that 
you knew that fact, that that was a fact at that time, 
and it was your belief that there were in the country 
those who opposed by refusal to obey the selective 
draft act and those who were debating whether or not 
they would volunteer or enlist in the armed forces? 

A. Yes, sir. 

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEDMAN: 

Q. You wrote that pamphlet when? 

A. Probably in June, July, and August. 

Q. The Becker trial took place in September, three 
months after, so you did not have that in mind? 

THE COURT : You are not correct as to that, you 
are in error as to that statement. 

MR. STEDMAN: When was it? 

THE COURT: The Becker trial took place in 
July of 1917. 

MR. STEDMAN: What part of July, do you 
know ? 

THE COURT : It was either at the end of June or 
the early part of July. 

A. I might say, Mr. Stedman, that I do not recall 
those events in the Summer in any clear sequence. I 
remember instances, but I do not remember the se- 
quence. 

Q. The resistance in the Southwest, I suppose you 
have in mind the instance in Oklahoma, haven't you? 

A. I think it was in Oklahoma. 

Q. Do you know when that took place? 

A. I don't remember. 

Q. You don't remember whether it was before this 
pamphlet was ever printed or not, do you? 

168 



A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you recall now that you had that intent in 
mind, at the time you were writing any part or portion 
of "The Great Madness"? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. The registration was in June, on June 5th, and 
the first call was in August. Let me ask you whether 
the incident in Oklahoma of the dozen or two who had 
resisted there, was not after the call? 

A. Well, I do not know. I have no recollection as 
to the exact date. I have a recollection that the papers 
carried a great many stories, I think it was about 
Arkansas and Oklahoma. I remember reading the 
stories, but I do not remember the dates. 

Q. Now then, referring to the people that you in- 
quired about, who were "on the fence." Were they 
on the fence, to your knowledge, because of any judg- 
ment based upon the cause or the reasons of the war, 
or because of conscientious doubts, or by reason of 
fear or other things of that sort? 

A. I knew a number of people who have since be- 
come conscientious objectors, who were then not con- 
scientious objectors. 

Q. And a conscientious objector would not be 
caused by your pamphlet? 

A. I am saying, that I took the position through- 
out of always refusing to advise anybody. I stated — 
and I stated this to Government agents, who came and 
asked my advice, that I did not — that I would not ad- 
vise any other man as to a matter of conduct in so 
important a case. I carried that to the extent of never 
advising a man even to jeopardize his job. I think it 
is up to a man to make up his own mind on those mat- 
ters. I think it is a matter on which he must come to 
his own conclusions. 

Q. You stated something about some of your evi- 

169 



dence, that is some of the facts upon which you based 
your pamphlet, not being here. Was your home raided 
or searched? 

A. By a United States Government official, yes, 
sir. 

MR. BARNES: You mean raided? What do you 
mean by raided? 

MR. STEDMAN : I mean you came in and helped 
yourself without so much as an invitation, or a sug- 
gestion that you were violating a man's home or his 
castle. 

MR. BARNES: I object to any such questions. I 
object to the question and move to strike it out. I 
understood the term "raided'' as he was using it, 
meant to convey, searched by virtue of a search war- 
rant. 

THE WITNESS : They brought a search warrant 
with twenty-six sections in it, Mr. Barnes. 

THE COURT: The question can be amended so 
as to limit the answer. 

MR. STEDMAN : I will change the question. 

MR. BARNES: Was your home searched under a 
warrant ? 

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, with twenty-six sec- 
tions in the warrant. 

Q. They came there with a warrant? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And they took away, did they take anything 
away with them? 

A. I was not home at the time, I was in Chautau- 
qua at the time, and my home was in Toledo, and they 
took away a great deal of stuff. 

Q. Any data that was used for this? Have you 
asked them to return any of it? 

A. They returned the material, about three, or four 
months ago, I think. 

170 



Q. Well, have you had occasion to go over the data 
since its return, since they have returned the material? 

A. The material that they returned? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I have not. 

MR. BARNES : Was there any of the data that I 
asked you for on cross-examination in this stuff that 
the employees of the Government took away from 
you? 

THE WITNESS : Probably not. I would like to 
say in reply to that question, Mr. Barnes, that in writ- 
ing a pamphlet of this character, I ordinarily have a 
number of reference works like statistics and abstracts 
and the World Almanac and various other reference 
works, to refer to, and when I get together a particular 
body of information I cannot say two years afterwards 
where I got it all. 

Q. Your attention was called this morning to a 
paragraph in the platform of the Socialist Party. That 
is distinguishable from the proclamation and war pro- 
gram, is it not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether that section that was 
referred to, upon bonds, was eliminated from that 
platform? 

MR. BARNES : That is objected to as incompetent, 
irrelevant and immaterial. 

MR. STEDMAN: You have read it as though it 
was a necessary document to be introduced in this 
case. 

MR. BARNES: I have read a portion of it, and 
I have asked him if he agreed with these various parts, 
and asked him for his frame of mind in regard to them, 
and it is immaterial whether the party changed his po- 
sition on that or not later; we went into it simply to 
get his frame of mind in 1917. 

171 



THE COURT : I agree with your proposition. At 
the same time, in order to clear the proposition up, 
I will allow the answer. 

Q. I will just ask you, Mr. Nearing, do you know 
whether, as a matter of fact, when that was circulated 
by the party, that clause was omitted? 

A. I believe it was; yes. 

Q. I understand you to say, in regard to Webster, 
I understand that while you would not adopt that 
course as you understand it, yet the man was to do 
what he personally thought was right? 

A. Yes, sir, I think one of the most important 
things is that a man should live up to his convictions. 

Q. At the time you wrote "The Great Madness" 
do you recollect that "The American Socialist" had a 
circulation of a couple of hundred thousand ? 

A. Something like that, yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recall at that time, that is in August 
particularly, or July, there were a large number of 
meetings, at least in the Middle West and the West, 
and petitions requesting Congress to repeal the Selec- 
tive Draft Law? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know r whether the petitions were quite 
general ? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know whether the pages of that paper 
are open to you? 

A. "The American Socialist?" 

Q. Yes. 

A. They were. 

Q. You could have written a pamphlet against 
conscription — I mean in opposition to the draft law r , 
or in opposition to recruiting and enlistment, and also 
to the creating of insubordination and disloyalty, and 
assuming that that accorded with the views of the 

172 



publisher, they would have furnished you the avenue 
of publication, wouldn't they? 

MR. BARNES: I certainly object to that ques- 
tion. 

THE COURT : I do not see how that is material. 

MR. STEDMAN : It has this significance, I want 
to call attention to the facilities for publishing his 
views in a way that it would have gotten before the 
public in a paper where in a publication of 46 pages, 
in a leaflet, it would not, naturally get so fully into 
the hands of the people who would be likely to resist 
the selective act, or enlistment. If that was his pur- 
pose, it would be done by a circulating medium that 
would have 200,000 readers at least, and not such a 
limited number. 

THE COURT: Objection sustained on the ground 
it is immaterial. 

MR. STEDMAN: And argumentative. 

THE COURT: I am glad you added another 
ground. 

Q. Were there other papers at the time that you 
were writing for? 

A. Well, I do not write for any paper regularly, 
but I wrote at intervals for a number of them. 

Q. And your "Great Madness" was sold for ten 
cents a copy, wasn't it? 

A. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Q. Speaking of Child Labor Laws, there were 
quite a number introduced, that is, bills to repeal the 
operation of the Child Labor Laws, weren't there? 

A. They were quite generally introduced, yes, sir. 

Q. And it was during the war? 

A. Immediately after it broke out. 

O. And the Child Labor Law was declared uncon- 
stitutional, that is, the National Child Labor Law? 

A. Yes, sir. 

/ 

173 



Q. That was the law to prohibit interstate ©•»- 
merce in child labor manufactured articles? 

A. Yes, sir. 

MR. BARNES: But it will be re-enacted again, 
though. 

MR. STEDMAN : Oh, no, it will be in quite a dif- 
ferent form. 

MR. BARNES : For the same purpose, however. 

MR. STEDMAN : The court has not passed on it 
yet ; it may go the same way as the other. 

Q. You were asked a question this morning and 
I want to call your attention to what you were asked 
in regard to some council here, some Workingmen's 
Council, or People's Council, and Mr. Barnes inter- 
jected, following it along with a question, and 
asked you whether you had any relation or kinship 
with the Workingmen and Soldiers' Council in Russia? 

MR. BARNES: I do not mean to charge that it 
had any immediate relation. 

MR. STEDMAN : Was of the same character and 
kind. 

MR. BARNES : That is what I meant, yes. 

Q. Do you know of any analogy between the two? 

A. Why, as I stated this morning ■ 

Q. First, I want to ask you were you a member 
of any such council? 

A. Of the People's Council? 

-Q. Called the Peoples' Council, and that had no re- 
lation to any policy or program or anything in line 
with the Soviets, did it? 

A. Well, except that they advocated a certain line 
of publicity with regard to : no annexations and no 
indemnities, and free development of all peoples. That 
is one of the planks in the Council, I believe, and that 
was one of the planks in the Soviet Government plat- 
form. 

174 



Q. And if you recall, was not that adopted also and 
has not it been adopted also by the Kerensky Govern- 
ment? 

A. Yes, it has, and by the Revolutionary Govern- 
ment of Russia. 

O. And that was adopted later in the phraseology, 
that very phraseology, by the President? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Of no annexations and no punitive indemnities? 

A. He used those phrases. 

Q. And it started with the Socialist Party? 

A. In the United States. 

Q. And the Peoples' Council took it up, and then 
the Russians, and then the President? 

A. Yes, sir. 

O. And yet it originated with the Socialist Party, 
this very declaration? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And what I am directing your attention to is 
this : the Soviets have an economic program and pur- 
pose, and as I remember it, the Russian Government 
was locally Soviet, or the all-Russian Soviet? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now has this People's Council anything, in any 
character, kind or object with them? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Does not deal with the economic problems at 
all? 

A. No, sir, it was a propaganda, organized for the 
discussion of public policies. 

O. And those public policies were what? 

A. As I stated them this morning. 

O. What were they, you may state them again? 

A. I stated them this morning, and they were : t© 
state the terms of peace, upon which the allies were 
willing to open negotiations; second, to preserve the 

175 



civil liberties; and third, the maintenance of economic 
and industrial standards. 

Q. Do you recall that you were actually a member 
of the Civil Liberties Bureau? 

A. I do not, I think I told Mr. Barnes this morning 
that I was not certain on that point. 

THE COURT: Have you refreshed your recollec- 
tion since recess on that? 

THE WITNESS : Well, I have been told— I tried 
to look it up, but I was never officially connected with 
the organization; but I remember sitting in at some 
of the executive committee meetings, probably unoffi- 
cially. 

Q. You understand, as a Socialist, or do you mean 
as a Socialist, in using the term "resistance" the aban- 
donment of the legal proceedings? 

MR. BARNES : I object to that, if the Court please, 
upon the same grounds. 

MR. STEDMAN: It does not come exactly the 
same now, your Honor, because it has been brought 
out now that the Socialist Party never used that plat- 
form when they sent it out, not in the form that it was 
read to the witness on cross-examination. 

MR. BARNES: Well, I object to it. On cross- 
examination I endeavored to get this witness's under- 
standing of the platform and his counsel objected at 
that time. Now his counsel is endeavoring to bring 
it out, and I now must make the same objection. 

MR. STEDMAN: I will withdraw the question 
and I will give you another chance to object again. I 
will frame another question. 

Q. Do you mean by the term "resistance" the forc- 
ible and unlawful opposition to the execution of or 
compliance with the law? 

MR. BARNES : That is objected to. 

THE COURT: Is the word "resistance" used in 

176 



"The Great Madness" anywhere? 

MR. STEDMAN: No, it is used in the platform. 

THE COURT: I understand, but I would allow 
you to ask him to tell about that, if it occurred in "The 
Great Madness." 

MR. STEDMAN : I rather think it appears some- 
where in "The Great Madness" but if "resistance" 
doesn't appear there I am somewhat surprised that the 
word is not there. 

Q. Do you recall the word "resistance" occurring 
there anywhere, Mr. Nearing? 

A. I don't remember it. 

Q. Well, find a page where that word is found, if 
you can. 

MR. BARNES : I don't think you will find it. 

MR. STEDMAN: If you say, Mr. Barnes, that the 
word resistance was not used there in "Great Mad- 
ness," very well. 

MR. BARNES : I do not think it was. 

A. It is on the title page of "The Menace of Mili- 
tarism." 

MR. STEDMAN : Good. You offered that in evi- 
dence. Now, your Honor, I will repeat the question. 

MR. BARNES : That is in a quotation from Wood- 
row Wilson. 

MR. STEDMAN: Yes, and he adopts that phrase- 
ology. 

Q. I am not asking you what Mr. Wilson meant, 
I cannot do that, but I will repeat the question that 
I put to you before : Do you mean by "resistance" a 
forcible resistance to the execution of the law or to 
appeals to the law? 

MR. BARNES: I object to what he means by 
"resistance." If he wants to give his side of what he 
thinks Woodrow Wilson meant, to express his idea 
of this particular quotation, where he says, "if we 

177 



have forgotten how to object, how to resist," etc. 

MR. STEDMAN: Of course, if you object, why 
I am not asking him as you seem to think to put the 
interpretation on what Wooclrow Wilson had in mind, 
I am not asking him to interpret Mr. Wilson's mind. 

THE COURT : I do not see that the witness's de- 
finition of "resistance" would be relevant to the con- 
troversy unless it appeared in "The Great Madness," 
or one of his other works. Or, unless in the course 
of his examination he had taken some position as to 
resistance. I do not understand that he did that. 

MR. STEDMAN : What I am endeavoring to do, 
of course, is apparent. The word "resistance" is used 
in the document that goes before this jury. And it is 
well enough for us to speculate on the distinction and 
difference in a definite line of evidence, but the mean- 
ing that a word may take on, even when special stress 
is laid upon it, may be very different when it has not 
been properly defined to begin with. It may take on 
a different meaning, than it is likely to if the District 
Attorney should argue in the future, that he was ad- 
vocating "resistance to the law," and "resistance to 
this and that and the other thing," his interpretation 
of that term, and I want to show that the defendant 
had by that, no such sinister meaning-, but that 
he meant open resistance by legal means, which 
are open to any man under the constitution, and which 
is not the sinister meaning which would be attempted 
to be argued into it if we did not have the proper de- 
finition before us. 

MR. BARNES : The point about that is, that this 
is a question that the witness had been questioned 
about by the Government, and he testified to it before 
lunch. After lunch— I object to his telling about it 
now. 

Q. Do you believe in resistance to compulsory 

178 



military training and to the conscription of life and 
labor, resistance being an open and unlawful violation 
of the law? 

A. I do not. 

Q. Mr. Barnes asked you whether you knew that 
munition contracts were let to the lowest bidder. 
I believe you answered and said that you did not know. 
Is that the answer? 

A. No, I did not know about the awarding of con- 
tracts. 

0. You were asked in regard to the referendum 
taken as a result of our entrance into the war. Do 
you know T as a matter of fact, that public action or 
referendums were taken, and that you have referred 
to them? Let me call your attention, perhaps to two 
instances where in Maine and Dakota referendums 
were taken. 

MR. BARNES : He mentioned those in his pam- 
phlet. 

A. Yes, they are in the pamphlet. 

Q. They are in the pamphlet, I believe? 

A. Yes. 

Q. That was a postal card referendum taken by 
Lundeen, for one 

THE COURT: Those were unofficial? 

MR. STEDMAN: Those were unofficial, if your 
Honor please. It was taken by sending a letter inclos- 
ing a return postal card to the voters in the district and 
getting returns. 

O. Are you familiar with that, how that is done? 

A. There is a statement to that effect in "The Great 
Madness/' I recall that, and there were Minnesota, 
and I think there was one in Massachusetts, one in 
Ohio and one in Wisconsin, and I do not remember 
the other instances, but they were overwhelmingly 
against the entrance of the United States into the war. 

179 



Q. Do you recall there was one in Maine also? 

A. I do not remember that particularly. 

BY THE COURT: 

Q. Of course, in these unofficial referendums, you 
don't know to whom they were sent, or how broad- 
cast they were, or what, do you ? 

A. No, there were quite a number of cases the 
Congressmen sent — took a section right out of his or 
their constituency, and sent to every voter in that par- 
ticular constituency. 

Q. You do not know whether it was a Congress 
district wide referendum, or the extent of it, or how 
absolutely impartial it was? 

A. In the case of Lundeen, he got 8,800 answers 
back, I don't know how many he didn't get back, but 
eight thousand of them were against entrance and 
eight hundred in favor of it, a ratio of ten to one, as I 
recall. 

Q. You don't know how many people did not an- 
swer the Congressman's letter, do you? 

A. No, sir, no evidence on that point. 

BY MR. STEDMAN : 

Q. Do you know what total vote there is in Lun- 
deen's district? 

A. I do not. 

BY THE COURT : 

O. Where did he come from? 

A. Minnesota. 

BY MR. STEDMAN: 

Q. Speaking of the War of 1861, do you recall as 
a matter of historical knowledge, that the issue of the 
war was a political issue, prior to even the nomination 
of Abraham Lincoln in the Douglas-Lincoln debates? 

A. Yes, that was in 1858. 

Q. That was the issue, wasn't it, throughout, the 
North, made very clear at that time, and the anti- 

180 



Secessionists of the North won that election, did they 
not, that is, opposed to secession, in the North? 

A. Yes, sir, in the electing of Mr. Lincoln, that was 
won by those opposed to secession, yes. 

Q. Mixed up of course with debate, that is, be- 
tween those opposing and in favor of slavery? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in the army that they were enlisting, there 
were those who were not opposed to secession, but 
those who went into the army because they were op- 
posed to slavery? 

A. Yes, sir, both of the issues were very promi- 
nent in the enlistment campaigns. 

Q. Some went in on the loyalty issue and the na- 
. tionalism issue, and others went in on the Bill of 
Rights, or Civil Liberty issue, that is, one w r ent in for 
one reason and others went in for other reasons? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in 1848 with Mexico, in that war, do you 
recall that that was also a political campaign fought 
out on that issue and that Lincoln was one of the oppo- 
nents in carrying on the campaign against President 
Polk, during that time? 

A. During that war, yes. 

Q. Do you remember before the entry into the war 
there, that that was a campaign issue? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was developed through a desire for the 
adding of one more State, that is one more of the 
States to the one side, to strengthen and maintain its 
economic position? 

A. Yes, sir. 

MR. BARNES: Do you mean does this witness 
recall that fact? 

MR. STEDMAN : No, does he know it as a matter 
of historical information, of course you do, but the 

181 



rest of us do not. 

Q. And the war issue of 1916 to the extent that it 
developed itself in the United States, placed the 
Democratic candidate in the position of anti-war 
candidate? 

MR. BARNES: That is objected to on the ground 
that it is argumentative and not proper. 

THE COURT: Objection sustained. 

MR. STEDMAN : I do not think of anything more, 
I think that is all, Mr. Nearing. 

MR. BARNES : That is all. 



182 



Scott Mearing's Address 
to the Jury 

MR. NEARING: Gentlemen, I am on trial here be- 
fore you, charged with obstructing the recruiting and 
enlistment service to the detriment of the service, to 
/ the injury of the service, and with attempting and caus- 
ing insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny and the refusal 
of duty within the military and naval forces. 

That is the charge of the indictment and that is the 
charge upon which I am being tried. 

The prosecution has not been able to show a single 
instance in which recruiting w r as obstructed. They 
have not been able to show a single instance in which 
insubordination, disloyalty, and refusal of duty were 
caused. 

It has been seventeen or eighteen months since this 
pamphlet was published. During that time there have 
been about nineteen thousand copies of it loose in the 
country, and the prosecution was unable to bring be- 
fore you a single instance where these things have actu- 
ally occurred. 

How then, do they seek to make out their case? Mr. 
Barnes said, in his opening: 

"It is not necessary for the Government to show 
that there was an actual obstruction in the sense of a 
physical obstruction ; it was not necessary for the Gov- 
ernment to show actual mutiny and disloyalty, but the 
publication of this book in itself is sufficient to result 
in a conviction. " 

183 



In other words, the Government maintains that the 
publication of this book, and the intent showed by the 
publication of the book, and by their surrounding evi- 
dence is sufficient to warrant a conviction. 

So that the only act that is alleged against me is 
an expression of my opinions : writing in this book and 
expressing my opinions on the St. Louis Proclamation, 
of the Socialist Party platform. 

The act and the intent are both to be construed from 
my expressions of opinion. It has not been shown 
that I obstructed enlistment, that I tore down enlist- 
ment posters, that I told men not to enlist, it has not 
been shown that I went among soldiers and asked them 
to mutiny, or to be disloyal or to refuse to perform 
their duty, none of these things are shown. 

I am charged with writing and having sent that 
writing to a publisher and had it published. 

I am charged, furthermore, with expressing fur- 
ther and other opinions in the pamphlet on militarism 
and in certain other ways, so that the whole crime of 
which I am supposed to be — according to the prosecu- 
tion's case — guilty, the whole crime consists in my 
expression of opinion, and the intent which they pro- 
pose to show, both arising out of my discussion of 
public questions. 

Now as to this book, you have heard it read or have 
read it, and I suppose all of you have or have had or 
will have copies. 

This book was written in order to present a view- 
held by many people — held by me among that num- 
ber — on the greatest public question that has come 
before the American people, I suppose, since the Civil 
War. 

It is a book written on the greatest issue that we 
have viewed in our generation. It was written 
openly, sent to a publisher, sent to Washington and 

184 



copyrighted and sent through the mails tnroughout 
August, September, October, November, December, 
January, February and March and until the indict- 
ment was found in April. 

During all of those nine months, this pamphlet went 
through the mails, and as some of you know, the Post 
Office Department has been very rigorous in enforc- 
ing its decisions with regard to unmailable matter; 
and all through those nine months that pamphlet went 
through the mail and it was never once stopped to our 
knowledge. It was copyrighted, it was sent through 
the mails for nine months, it was sold openly in the 
Rand School bookstore and in other parts of the 
United States. So far as I know, (and I am in touch 
with the situation), it never was given away, but sold 
for ten cents, openly, without any attempt at conceal- 
ment. 

In other words, gentlemen, I took on this great pub- 
lic question, a certain position; I presented my views 
in this book, and I am indicted for w r riting the book 
because the prosecution alleges it caused — it was an 
obstruction or it caused, or it was an attempt to cause 
disloyalty and mutiny, therefore if I am convicted 
under this indictment I will be convicted for an ex- 
pression of my opinions. There is no other evidence 
before you except my opinions. 

The District Attorney has not shown a single act 
except those involved in the expression of an opinion, 
either on the witness stand or in the various writings 
of mine which he has brought before you. 

So that by convicting me for writing this book you 
convict me for public discussion, and you draw my 
intent from my discussion. On the same ground I 
think all of the opponents of any administration dur- 
ing the war might be convicted for opposing in any 
way the administration, because in opposing an ad- 

185 



ministration, any opposition to it tends to dampen the 
ardor, and to hold back and to check enthusiasm. 

All through my life, I have been interested in pre- 
serving the institutions of democracy. That has been 
one of the things, as I tried to point out on the wit- 
ness stand, that seem to me fundamentally important. 
I believe that democracy is a better form of social 
organization than aristocracy, or monarchy or any 
other form of Government that the world has ever 
known. Discussion is one of the purposes of democ- 
racy. Democracy means that a people talking a ques- 
tion over, thinking it out and reaching a decision upon 
it, may then register that decision. 

The only way to have intelligent public opinion is 
to have discussion, and the moment you check dis- 
cussion you destroy democracy. 

When any adminstration, whether in Russia or Ger- 
many or England or the United States, stops any dis- 
cussion and puts its opponents in jail, that has de- 
stroyed the institution of democracy because democ- 
racy rests on discussion; and the only way in which 
we can preserve democracy is to reserve to every 
citizen of the democracy the right to express the con- 
victions that he has : the right to be right and the 
right to be wrong. 

The Constitution does not guarantee us only the 
right to be correct, we have a right to be honest and 
in error. And the views that I have expressed in this 
pamphlet I expressed honestly. I believe they are 
right. The future will show whether or not I was cor- 
rect, but under the laws, as I understand it, and under 
the Constitution as I understand it, every citizen in 
this country has a right to express himself, subject 
always to the law, subject always to the limitations 
which the law prescribes, has a right to express him- 
self on public questions. 

186 



The moment any administration enters and shuts 
down that right, that moment democracy ceases te 
exist. 

Now the principal question that enters into this 
thing is the question of intent. Mr. Stedman, I 
imagine, will talk to you about the law, or about the 
legal consideration, and the Judge, I believe will 
charge you with regard to the legal aspect of the prob- 
lem of intent. 

I am not a lawyer, and I cannot speak to you regard- 
ing the legal phases of the case, but I should like to 
say a few words about this problem of intent. 

We have tried to produce evidence to prove to you 
that for the last twelve or fifteen years I have been 
a student of the institutions, standards and ideals of 
American life. Ever since the time that I entered 
college and indeed from the time I was in High School, 
I have been profoundly interested in seeing a certain 
thing done in the United States : I wanted to see 
liberty first, because I believe liberty is fundamental 
in society; then I wanted to see justice. I wanted to 
see that people got opportunity, that the boys and 
girls that were born had a chance to be well born and 
well brought up. 

And during these twelve or fifteen years I have been 
busy with that problem; that has been the thing to 
which I have devoted all of my life thus far; that is 
the thing in w r hich I have been profoundly interested 
— profoundly interested because I came to the belief 
many years ago that with the resources of America 
and the opportunities in America we could have a very 
much finer and a very much higher standard of life 
here than we actually have. 

My studies and my investigations have led me to 
certain conclusions : for example I believe that econo- 
mic forces are fundamental forces. I tried to point 

187 



that out in the course of my testimony, just as plants 
in a garden draw their nourishment from the dirt, so 
men and women in a society draw their life from eco- 
nomic sources. They eat, they wear clothes, they live 
in their houses, and every time that the sun rises they 
have got to do those things, we are thrown back to 
that life. In the garden you get roses, you also get 
lettuce and turnips, fruits of almost all kinds — all pro- 
ducts out of the same dirt. 

And so in society you get different minds, different 
thoughts, different ideas, different standards of life, 
and they all reach back to the same dirt: to the food, 
clothing, shelter, and the necessary economic things 
of life. 

If you cannot get these economic necessaries you 
cannot live. Therefore in that »sense, economics is 
fundamental in the minds of people, so fundamental 
that all through history, people have fought over the 
river valleys, over the choice sections of the earth; 
so important that today in the United States forty 
million people are engaged in gainful occupations, 
working for a living, because without work we cannot 
live; without an economic background to our life we 
cannot get anywhere. 

I believe that those economic forces which are so 
fundamental have always shown themselves in soci- 
ety, in struggles between the possessors and the dis- 
possessed. Whoever possesses the resources and the 
economic opportunities controls the means of life. 

In the early years of American life, where every 
man practically had a farm, or an opportunity to get 
one, economic opportunity was widely distributed and 
resources were free. You could go out to the border, 
to the edge of civilization, out to the frontier world 
and take a farm or take a piece of land. 

About 1890 the resources in this country were ex- 

188 



hausted. There were no more free resources: all the 
important timber, all the important minerals, all the 
important parts of the earth, practically, were taken 
up ; and from that time until this, we have seen a grad- 
ual widening chasm between those who possess the 
necessities and those who do not. 

When the Constitution of the United States was 
drafted, Madison, Jefferson and other men, saw the 
danger, and they tried to provide against it. They 
were not successful. At the present time the owner- 
ship of most of the United States is in the hands of 
a tiny percentage of people. And here in the City of 
New York where the land alone is worth five thou- 
sand millions of dollars, the improvements three 
billions more, where we have over four billions of 
dollars in our banks, savings banks and others, four 
billion five hundred millions of bank deposits in this 
City, and the Board of Education and the United 
States Food Administration report 280,000 children in 
the schools inadequately nourished to such an extent 
that their health is injured: twenty-one and one-half 
out of every hundred children in the City of New York 
are seriously underfed. In this same City we have 
people with incomes of five hundred thousand and a 
million dollars a year; people who could live on five 
thousand or ten thousand dollars, and have all the 
comforts and luxuries, — the simple luxuries of life. 

Here we have on one hand a quarter of a million 
hungry children, and on the other hand, half a billion 
wealth in the hands of the few. * 

Lincoln, in speaking against Judge Douglas in 1858 
on the slavery issue, said that no order of society can 
last, in which one man can say to another man, "You 
work and toil and earn bread, and I will eat it." Now 
that is the society that we have established : one man 
works for his living, another man owns property and 

189 



from the rent and interest and dividends whieh he 
gains out of his property ownership, he lives without 
work, if he desires. 

And another man creates the shoes and the clothes 
and the food and the other good things that he uses, 
and he has those things, possesses them, enjoys them, 
without himself ever raising a finger to toil. 

At the present time there are people at Palm Beach 
who have never worked for their living. They are 
down there living extravagantly and enjoying the soft 
breezes, getting strength and health. 

There are men and women here in New York who 
have worked all their lives, been honest and sober and 
tried to bring up families and today they cannot pay 
the landlord and the grocer and the butcher and keep 
their children healthy under this capitalistic system 
although they are sober, earnest and honest, indus- 
trious people, and all of it due to the fact of the eco- 
nomic system under w r hich they are living because the 
wages that they get are not sufficient to buy the neces- 
saries of life, as I tried to point out on the stand in 
my discussion of the wages problem. 

On the other hand there are people — these people 
who live in ease, comfort and luxury, who have never 
raised a finger to produce one solitary article of food, 
clothing or shelter, or luxury or any comforts, and this 
is so all the time and my studies have taught me that 
these conditions exist. You know them. No one who 
has read or thought about the conditions in the United 
States but knows that those conditions are true, 
and I say to you gentlemen that as long as those things 
are true, just so long will it be impossible for us to 
have stable peace and order in our society. 

No person is more anxious than I to have an or- 
dered, well conducted society, but I do not believe 
that it is possible to maintain order in society where 

190 



one man or one group of men living without labor, 
luxuriously, and another man, or group of men, in 
spite of their most earnest efforts, are unable to pro- 
vide their families with the necessaries of life. 

In the past this same question has been raised and 
in the past men have come to the decision — and I 
agree with that decision — that the only way in which 
we can have justice in the world is to have economic 
justice. x\n economic justice is only possible where 
the majority and not the minority, controls the neces- 
saries of life. 

If democracy means anything, it means that the 
majority of people control the conditions of their own 
life. In the United States, a tiny minority controls 
economic affairs. And so long as one small group of 
men own the jobs, own the products, and own the 
surpluses of industry, so long will the majority be 
unable to secure justice. And that is why I believe 
that the majority of people must control in industry 
and economic affairs as they are controlling in the 
political affairs. That is why I believe that we must 
have industrial democracy as well as political democ- 
racy. 

Now I say this, that all of these years I have been 
studying such problems, and I have reached those 
conclusions. My say-so on that is of no importance. 
The existence in New York and other American cities 
of starving children side by side with fabulous 
wealth, and idle people, is the thing that should be 
of profound concern to every person who lives, or 
rather to the future of the society in which we live. 

At various times, as we pointed out, I have written 
down my conclusions in books. We had here the 
other day a set of those books. Some of them are 
purely statistical, full of tables and figures. Some of 
them are text books, some are pamphlets like this 

191 



"Great Madness." 

Whenever I collected together a great body of in- 
formation which seemed to me to be important, I 
embodied it into a book, published it, and in some 
cases I published it at my own expense. Statistical 
books are extremely expensive, and if you sell one 
thousand copies of a statistical book you are doing 
very well. Publishers won't take them, and authors 
have to pay the bill. 

I published those books because I felt that as a 
teacher, I had a certain obligation to the community 
that paid my salary. I was working in the State, or 
a semi-State University. I was working at a com- 
paratively easy job. I had three months' vacation in 
the Summer time. I had leisure during the year, and 
I employed that leisure in working over social prob- 
lems. 

I believe that whenever any person gets anything 
that might be of value to the other people in the com- 
munity, that it is his obligation to turn that thing over 
to the community : whether he is a scientist in physical 
science, or a bacteriologist, a chemist or a scientist 
in social science, and economics, or sociology, when 
a man discovers a method of separating milk, or for 
destroying the bacteria, harmful bacteria in milk, or 
when he discovers a method of checking influenza, or 
overcoming tuberculosis, and gives it to the world, 
the world acclaims the gift, and its giver. 

And so when a man discovers, or so-called science 
discovers a method that will make people happier, give 
them more opportunity, a greater liberty to enjoy 
more social justice, I believe he has got exactly the 
same obligation to state what he has found. If they 
agree with him, well and good, if they don't agree 
with him, he goes on to his own scientific problems. 

I said there on the witness stand that five of these 

192 



books dealt with distribution: A book on wages, a 
book on the standard of living, a book on the cost 
of living, a book on income and a book on anthracite 
industry. 

When I published those books I knew that no man 
could take a stand that I took in those books, and 
hold a job in an American University; and I published 
them because I wanted the American people to know 
the truth about the most fundamental economic ques- 
tions before them today : the question of the distribu- 
tion of wealth. 

We have learned how to produce wealth in large 
quantities, but we haven't yet learned how to distrib- 
ute it, and I wanted the American people to know the 
results of my studies and researches regarding the 
distribution of wealth. 

I published those books, and as we mutually agreed, 
and I said in the course of my direct examination on 
the stand, the university and I parted company. I 
then went out to Toledo. After I had been there a 
year and a half the question of preparedness came up. 
I regarded the question of preparedness as a question 
of fundamental importance to society. I knew who 
was behind the preparedness campaign. I knew that 
no man could hold a job in the American universities 
and take the stand that I took on the preparedness 
issue. I wrote the "Germs of War" and went all over 
the United States, speaking on preparedness, and 
speaking against preparedness. I spoke in favor of a 
movement of preparedness that I believed will alone 
safeguard business and justice among men. 

The Toledo University and I parted company. Then 
we entered the war, and I saw what I believed to be 
a great menace to the liberties of the American peo- 
ple, namely : the growing power of the plutocracy, the 
growing power w T hich it was gaining through the war, 

193 



and so I wrote this book on the "Great Madness" in 
order to try to point out to the American people ex- 
actly what was happening. 

If you will notice, the book is not a denunciation 
of our society, it is not a denunciation of our Govern- 
ment, it is an exposition of certain events in terms of 
their economic significance. I tried to show how the 
economic control of the country, of the resources, 
and of American life is manifesting itself all through 
the social structure. I published that book, and here 
we are. 

For fifteen years I have been speaking and writing 
and stating my views on public questions. I have 
stated it openly, I have stated it as honestly as I could 
state it; I stated it to the University of Pennsylvania, 
and I stated it at the University of Toledo, and I have 
stated it since I left the University of Toledo. 

If I intended to obstruct recruiting or enlist- 
ments, if I had intended to interfere with the prosec- 
ution and carrying on of the administrative policies 
of the navy and army, either by creating insubordina- 
tion and mutiny, or otherwise, I should have said so ; 
I should not have written a fifty-page pamphlet and 
sold it for ten cents each ; I should have gone out and 
told the soldiers so, and I should have told the pros- 
pective soldier so. Never in my life have I gone out 
and done anything indirectly. If I have wanted to 
say a thing, I have said it; if I have wanted to pre- 
sent a matter I have presented it, and taken the con- 
sequences. If I had wished in this case to obstruct or 
to interfere, I should have obstructed and interfered 
and taken the consequences. 

The District Attorney was at considerable pains to 
prove to you that I am a Socialist. He asked me ques- 
tions about the St. Louis Platform. He asked me 
questions about the Socialist Party Platform; many 

194 



questions, in order to prove that I am a Socialist. I 
am a Socialist. 

I want to tell you something about what that 
means: in the first place, I am an internationalist; 
that is, I believe in the brotherhood of all men. In 
the language of the Declaration of Independence, I 
believe that all men are created equal, that they have 
certain rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of hap- 
piness. That holds true of the man that lives next 
door to me, and it holds true of the man that lives 
in South Africa, and the man that lives way over in 
Asia. I believe in the Brotherhood of Man. 

I believe that ultimately the w T hole world will be 
federated together, just as these United States are 
federated together. There w r as a time in the United 
States when a man that lived in Georgia or Virginia, 
or New York, was perfectly willing to quarrel with 
a man who lived in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts 
or in New Hampshire. If you asked a man a hundred 
and fifty years ago where he was from, he said, I am 
from Virginia; I am from Pennsylvania. He now 
states, I am from the United States, not, I am from 
the American Colonies. He was a Virginian first and 
an American second. But that time has passed. 

Today America is kept first, and Pennsylvania sec- 
ond. And the time will come when the man from 
North America and the man from Europe and the 
man from Africa will say, I am a member of the human 
race; and the human race has certain common inter- 
ests, certain common obligations, and first among 
them is the recognition of the fact of the universal 
brotherhood of all men. 

I am from the United States? Yes. I am from 
New York? Yes. I am from Buffalo? Yes. I have 
a home in Buffalo? Yes. I am loyal to my home? 
Yes. To Buffalo? Yes. To New York? Yes. To 

195 



the United States? Yes. And I am also loyal to my 
fellow brother man. 

In other words, we Socialists look forward to a time, 
and certainly we are not alone in looking that way, — 
there are Qthers who are not Socialists who agree with 
us in this, — we look forward to the time when the peo- 
ples of all the world will join hands in common 
brotherhood. And when we say we are international- 
ists, that is what we mean. A man, yes, outside the 
boundaries of certain nations, but within the greater 
boundaries of the world, he is within the boundaries 
of the whole world, and he is a member of the human 
race. And we are internationalists, in the sense that 
we believe in our obligations to our human brothers, 
and that they are the supreme obligations of the world. 

That does not make us any less loyal to our homes 
or to our cities or our nations, but it does give us a 
larger and a more comprehensive loyalty. 

In the second place, believing that, I believe that we 
can do the things that are necessary to bring human 
brotherhood into reality. 

What are the facts of international life : education 
internationalizes, science internationalizes, commerce 
internationalizes, industry internationalizes the pro- 
cesses and the methods of ideas, arts and letters and 
life, all internationalize. What then stands in the way 
of human brotherhood? Why, the thing that stands 
in the way is that fragment of nationalism, that still 
remains, that fragment is capitalism. 

And every nation, as I tried to point out in my tes- 
timony, in every nation there is a little coterie of men 
or interests who find it to their profit to keep national 
animosities alive. The peoples of the world have no 
animosities one against the other, but the rulers of the 
world fan those animosities into flame: religious ha- 
tred, class antagonism, national feeling, are all kept 

196 



boiling and stirring in men's souls. 

You go to a restaurant, or you go to the shop or you 
go out on the street, and you will sit down together, 
and you will work together with Irish and Austrian, 
Italian and Slovak, side by side, elbow to elbow. The 
peoples of the world have nothing against one another, 
the people of the w r orld have more in common than 
they have in opposition. It is the economic barrier, it 
is the economic division lines that create the difficulty. 

And we Socialists, or I, rather, am interested — and 
that is the reason I am a Socialist — in destroying those 
economic division lines. How can that be done? I 
believe there is only one way. I believe that is the only 
w r ay to destroy these economic barriers and make in- 
ternational life a reality, and that is, to give to those 
who work the full product of their labor; instead of 
having a man work for a part of what he creates, 
turning the other part over in the form of interest, 
rent and dividends to the owner of the job, I believe 
that the worker, the man or woman who was render- 
ing a socially useful service should get the full value 
of his product. Then there would not be any surplus 
to invest in foreign markets, and in foreign opportuni- 
ties. Then there would not be any surplus to be used 
by private individuals in the development of Mexico 
or China or Argentine. 

You say then that those countries would develop 
more slowly. Perhaps. But when they did develop 
that country it would come from within those coun- 
tries and it would be for the benefit of those countries 
and not for the benefit of some foreign capitalist. 

I believe we will never solve our international dif- 
ferences successfully until we have taken out of the 
hands of individuals the right to invest surplus, the 
right to utilize vast quantities of wealth in the way 
that will create friction and ultimately international 

197 



dissension and war between the different groups of 
peoples. Therefore I am in favor of having the work- 
ers own their own jobs. There is only one way to do 
that now. 

In early America, when there was no great aggre- 
gation of wealth, when each man could own his farm, 
he could own his job. At present the telephone system 
is a system. The railroad system is a system. The 
banking system is a system. The United States Steel 
Corporation system is a system. No one man can own 
his own job. You cannot own a rail, you cannot own 
a link, you cannot own a piece of a system because if 
you take out that piece, your system is cut. If you 
take out a telephone exchange, you break down the 
integrity of the telephone organization. 

Therefore the only way in which one man can own 
his job is to own it collectively, that is, the whole 
system. So that we believe that all the people w T ho 
work should own the tools with which they work, just 
as all the people of the United States own the harbor 
of New York. I believe that all of the people of the 
United States should own the railroads and the bank- 
ing system and every great social product in its en- 
tirety, just as they own the post office, just as they 
own several great irrigation plants, and the Panama 
Canal, and some other similar developments. 

I believe the only solution, the only possible solution 
is that the people, all of the people, that they may 
have free economic life, is that they control the po- 
litical life. 

One hundred and fifty years ago they would have 
laughed at the idea of having a political democracy. 

Napoleon said a republic of twenty-six million souls 
were folly. He sneered at the concept that people 
could govern themselves politically. Today we are 
beginning to wonder whether it will not be possible 

198 



for people to govern themselves economically, and 
today, as I hold, there are many who see here the 
coming principle, the great proletariat control of eco- 
nomic affairs, and who regard it as a ridiculously 
absurd thing, an impossible thing, but as I say, de- 
mocracy means control by the people, and I believe 
in democracy, and I believe therefore in the control by 
the people of the machinery of production. Just as J 
believe they should control the city government, just 
so I believe they should control the other branches of 
life. Just as they control the political returns, just so 
they should control the economic returns. 

And so it seems to me there is no solution in any 
other way than similarly to control economic problems 
as we control political problems. They have both 
national and international systems. 

Some of you have noticed recently that the war is 
over, but yet there is turmoil all over the earth: tur- 
moil in Britain, turmoil in the United States; strikes, 
disturbances, and we are having very many problems 
yet which have not been solved even though the war 
be over. The solution of every problem depends on 
its being settled right, nothing ever is settled until it 
is settled right, that is, until it is settled to the best of 
our belief, it is not settled; and I believe that the 
Socialist philosophy presents to us the best avenue 
along which to approach the settlement of these stu- 
pendous problems of our economic life. 

I do not say that the socialists have the entire 
solution. I do not say that the socialists when they 
come into power, as they surely will come into power, 
will dispose of all the problems of the world. By no 
means, as there will always be problems ; but this we 
believe, going forward step by step through mechanics, 
and through chemistry, through applied science, we 
are solving the problems of production and are able to 

199 



turn the resources of nature into food and clothing 
and shelter, and the other necessaries of life, so I be- 
lieve society must solve the problem of distribution. 

Facing all of these problems equitably, and in the 
light of past experience, we believe that the only so- 
lution is to turn these things over, that is, operate and 
turn them over to the people who own them. 

As I said the other day when I was on the witness 
stand, that soap is made and it should be made to keep 
people clean, and that if shoes are made they should 
be made to protect people's feet. If food is produced 
it should be produced to nourish the human body. But 
as it is today, we are making soap for profit, we are 
making shoes for profit, we are making food for profit. 
The profiteering has become, and justly so, a word of 
contempt and opprobrium, and profiteering lies at the 
heart of the capitalistic system. 

The present system was organized, that is, the 
present system of industry was organized for profit 
and not for the service of mankind; and I am one of 
those who believe that you can never have an exact 
solution of any social problem until you have the ma- 
chinery organized for the benefit not of the very 
few, but for the benefit or for the service of the great 
masses of the people. In other words, as they said in 
the eighteenth century, the greatest good to the great- 
est number. That holds true of economic as well as 
political questions. 

The District Attorney also asked me a number of 
questions concerning my attitude towards the war. I 
wish he had put the Bible in evidence and asked me 
what I thought about the phrase, "Thou shalt not 
kill" ; and about that other phrase, "Overcome evil 
with good." But he didn't do that. I would have said 
that I agreed with those phrases as I agreed with 
many others. 

200 



I told him that I believed this war was a capitalists' 
war, that is, that I believed that it was a war between 
capitalist nations. When the war broke out there 
were no other kind of nations on earth than that kind — 
so that there could not be anything else but a war 
between capitalist nations. By the capitalist nation 
we mean a nation that is dependent upon a capitalist 
system of production, production by means of ma- 
chinery — capital. 

All the great nations of the world were capitalist 
nations at the time the war broke out. The war was 
necessarily a capitalists' war. A war between capi- 
talist nations, and as we all know now, or think we 
know, it was primarily a war over the trade routes to 
Persia and Syria, or over the "Berlin to Bagdad Rail- 
road" if you like, to put it that way; a war open to 
commercial and financial rights. 

I read you the other day a number of statements 
from the Navy League, and you will remember it is 
an ultra-capitalist, an ultra-conservative organization, 
in which they said exactly that thing which economists 
have stated for so long a time; students of history 
have said it for a long time; the Navy League comes 
forward and says the same thing; Mr. Wilson has 
repeatedly stated, and I believe it was a war between 
the capitalist nations and I believe it had as its chief 
business certain benefits for small groups of capital- 
ists. That does not mean that I believe the people 
who entered the war, entered it for capitalist reasons. 
Obviously they could not because they had no capital- 
ist interests. The masses of people in all the countries 
involved have no capitalist interest; they were being 
exploited, they were being worked ; theirs was the 
loss, to their prejudice in all of the capitalist countries 
of the world. They entered the war for what they 
called patriotic reasons ; they were loyal to their 

201 



country ; they believed that they were defending their 
country, their homes and their firesides and their 
liberties, from invasion; they entered it with enthusi- 
asm, and they entered it honestly and sincerely, with 
no capitalistic motives whatever ; they entered it hon- 
estly and sincerely, just as the nations entered it hon- 
estly and sincerely with capitalistic motives. And I 
honestly and sincerely believe that they sincerely and 
honestly and patriotically and altruistically entered the 
contest, that is, these people. So I say I believe it 
was a capitalists' war, a war between capitalist nations 
over financial and economic issues: coal, iron, trade, 
investments, opportunities, and the Navy League 
backs me up, and a lot of other authorities from that 
side of the fence back me up. 

I told the District Attorney on the stand that I was 
opposed to all wars. I regard war as a social disease, 
something that afflicts society, that curses people. I 
do not suppose three people in a hundred like war. I 
do not suppose that three people in a hundred want 
war. There are some people who are pugnacious, and 
who love to fight, for the sake of a fight, and they 
might like war, but I do not believe there are three 
people in a hundred, certainly not five in a hundred, 
that do. 

I believe the great majority of people agree with 
me that war is a curse, an unmitigated curse. All the 
things that come out of war come out in spite of war 
and not because of it. 

The democracy that has come into Europe, what- 
ever it is called, has come in spite of the war and not 
because of it. That would have come out in any case, 
and we would have had it without the expenditure of 
twenty million lives and a hundred and eighty billions 
of wealth. 

I regard war as a social disease, a social curse, and 

202 



I believe that we should stamp war out. To my mind 
the great curse of war is not that people are killed and 
injured, not that property is destroyed. That happens 
every day in peace times as well as in war times. To 
my mind the great curse of war is that it is built on 
fear and hate. 

Now fear and hate are primitive passions; the sav- 
ages in the woods are intimidated by fear and hate. 
They do not belong in civilized society. In civilized 
society, for fear and hate we substitute constructive 
purposes and love. It is their positive virtues. When 
we fear things, we draw back from them. When we 
hate things, we want to destroy them. 

In civilized society, instead of drawing away from 
things, and wanting to destroy them, we want to pull 
things together and build them up. Fear and hate 
are negatives. Peace and love are positives, and form 
the forces upon which civilization is built. And where 
we have collectively fear and hate, it is a means of 
menace to the order of the world. 

Furthermore, during war, we ask people to go out 
and deliberately injure their fellows. We ask a man 
to go out and maim or kill another man against whom 
he has not a solitary thing in the world, — a man who 
may be a good farmer, a good husband, a good son, and 
a good worker, and a good citizen. Another man comes 
out and shoots him down ; that is, he goes out and raises 
his hand against his neighbor to do his neighbor dam- 
age. That is the way society is destroyed. Whenever 
you go out to pull things to pieces, whenever you go 
out to injure anybody, you are going out to destroy 
society. Society can never be built up unless you go 
out to help your neighbors. 

The principle, "each for all and all for each," is the 
fundamental social principle. People must work to- 
gether if they are going to get anywhere. War 

203 



teaches people to go out and destroy other people and 
to destroy other people's property. 

And when Sherman said that war was hell, I believe 
that he meant, or at least to me that means, that war 
creates a hell inside of a man who goes to war. He is 
going to work himself up into a passion of hatred 
against somebody else, and that is hell. 

The destruction of. life and property is incidental. 
The destructive forces that that puts into a man's soul 
are fundamental. That is why I am opposed to all 
wars, just as I am opposed to all violence. I don't 
believe in any man having the right to go out and use 
violence against another man. That is not the right 
of one human being to have against the other, that is 
not the way you get brotherhood. That is the reason 
I told the District Attorney on the stand that I was 
against all wars. I am against duelling ; I am 
against all violence of man against man, and war is 
one of those methods of violence. 

I believe war is barbaric, I believe it is primitive, I 
believe it is a relic of a bygone age; I believe that 
society will be destroyed if built up that way. That 
is, I believe that they that take the sword must perish 
by the sword; just as they that set out to assist 
their neighbors are bound to build up a strong, co- 
hesive united society. That is the field over which I 
went in my direct testimony and in the cross-examina- 
tion. 

I have been a student of public affairs. I am a 
Socialist. I am a pacifist. But I am not charged with 
any of these things as offenses. On the other hand I 
believe that as an American citizen I have a right to 
discuss public questions. I think the Judge will charge 
you so. I have a right to oppose the passage of a law. 
I think the Judge will charge you so. I have a right 
under the law, after the law is passed, to agitate for a 

204 



development of public sentiment that will result in a 
repeal of that law. I think the Judge will charge you 
so. 

In other words, as I said in the beginning, in a 
democracy, if we are to have a democracy, as a student 
of public affairs and as a Socialist and as a pacifist, I 
have a right to express my opinions. I may be wrong, 
utterly wrong, and nobody listen to me, nobody pay 
any attention to me. I have a right to express my 
opinions. 

Gentlemen, I have been throughout my life as con- 
sistent as I could be. I have spoken and written for 
years, honestly and frankly. I went on the stand and 
I spoke to you as honestly as I knew how. I answered 
the District Attorney's questions as honestly and as 
frankly as I could. I stand before you today as an 
advocate of economic justice and world brotherhood, 
and peace among all men. 

And I wrote this pamphlet in the attempt to further 
those ends. 

I desire to say just one more thing: this is America 
in which I am on trial, and America's proudest tradi- 
tion is her tradition of liberty. For three hundred 
years people have been coming to America : Puritans, 
Pilgrims, Huguenots, Quakers, came over and formed 
the Colonies. 

Later, the Irish, the Scotch, the Germans, the Rus- 
sians, the Italians, the Syrians came here, not because 
of the hills and valleys, not because of the climate, not 
because of the language, but because of the liberty of 
x\merica ; and the men who came here and the women 
who came here in 1914, came here just as sincerely in 
search of that liberty as the men and women who came 
here in 1620. 

For three hundred years the world has been looking 
to America, and coming to America for liberty. That 

205 



is the choicest and the greatest heritage, that which 
Americans love. 

What was it that these people sought to escape in 
Europe? They sought to escape hunger, hardship, 
misery, suffering, and poverty. They came over here 
because they thought that the resources of America 
would yield enough food and clothing and shelter to 
feed and clothe and house every human being decently 
and comfortably. 

They came over from Europe to escape ignorance 
and escape the darkness in which Europe had been 
kept by these rulers. They came over here for en- 
lightenment — opportunity. Many of them came over 
here because it gave them the only chance that the 
world offered to express the truth, as they saw it. 
They left Europe because they wanted to escape pre- 
judice, bigotry, class antagonism and race hatred. 
They came over here because they thought that here 
they would find brotherhood among men, because they 
thought that here all peoples were welcome to sit 
down together and enjoy the opportunities that Amer- 
ica offered. They left Europe because of its military 
service, its wars, and the fear and hatred of war, that 
is, that war engendered. They thought to come over 
here and find peace and plenty. They left Europe be- 
cause of tyranny and despotism; the tyranny of the 
landlord, the despotism of aristocracy and the owners 
of the sources of life. 

They came over here because they thought that here 
they would find that every man had equal opportunity 
for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They 
came here seeking that liberty of the body, the liberty 
of the mind and the liberty of their heart and soul, and 
Socialist liberty. That is the background of the coun- 
try in which we are living. 

206 



That is the thing of which America is proud and 
for which America has stood ; that is the thing for 
which I believe America will stand today. 

There is nothing unique in our wealth. Other na- 
tions have wealth. There is nothing unique in our 
material possessions. Other nations have material 
possessions. But there was something unique in our 
liberty. 

As I said to you on the witness stand, I am an 
American, my ancestors have been Americans for 
more than two hundred years. As an American I have 
certain rights and certain duties. Among my rights 
under the first amendment to the Constitution are the 
rights of free speech and the free press; the right to 
speak and print the convictions that I have. It was 
'for those rights that our ancestors left Europe and 
came here. It is for those rights that some of us are 
contending today. 

I care not for the prosperity of this country if we 
are going to have gag laws. I care not for the wealth 
of this country if we are going to be forbidden to have 
free speech, and an opportunity for expressing our 
minds and expressing our opinions and discussing the 
great issues that are before us. 

In the old times of the Czar, we did not protest 
against Russia because she lacked wealth ; we protested 
against her because she lacked liberty. 

What was it that we found was lacking, or what 
was it that we found against the Kaiser in Germany? 
Was it that he was not a good business man? He was 
an excellent business man. Was it because he was 
not a good organizer? He was an excellent organizer. 
What we had against this man was the fact that he 
was a tyrant, that he trampled on the rights of other 
people. 

207 



They had wealth in Russia, they had prosperity in 
Germany. In America we want liberty. And I believe 
that as an American citizen, that is the dearest pos- 
session for which I can contend. That is my right 
constitutionally and legally. But if there were no 
constitution and no law, it would be my right as a 
member of a democratic society. 

Furthermore, as a citizen, I have certain duties. 
Citizenship involves duties as well as rights. If I saw 
that your house were on fire, it w T ould be my duty to 
warn you and to try to put it out, that is, put out the 
fire, and if I could not put out the fire, to save as much 
of your goods and such of your family as I could save. 
That would be my duty as a neighbor. 

I have been a student of public affairs in this coun- 
try for many years. I believe this country is in danger, 
in dire peril. On the one hand I see imperialism, 
militarism and war ahead of us. In our policy toward 
Mexico, in the policy that we are developing under 
the direction of preparedness advocates about which I 
spoke last Friday, I see ahead of us imperialism and 
militarism and war. 

This is not the last war, there is another war, and 
it will be a war between this nation and the nation 
that succeeds in the present contention in Europe. 

On the other hand, I see ahead of us in our indus- 
trial life, exploitation, widespread, by the masters of 
those who work for them. I see that exercised with 
increasing tyranny, and I see ahead of us revolt. In 
other words, to my mind, the outlook in America is 
not bright, and I am upheld in that view by Senators, 
by business men, by labor leaders, by all of the re- 
sponsible authorities who are speaking today for 
America'^ future. 

There are clouds on the horizon. I believe America 
is in peril and I believe that she is in peril from in- 

208 



ternal disturbances; I believe that the danger lurks 
within. And I believe it rests primarily in our unfair 
and unjust system of distribution of wealth, and the 
income of the country. 

As I said a moment ago, that if your house were on 
fire, it would be my duty as a neighbor to warn you 
and to try to help you save your property. I say to 
you now, that when I believe this nation is in danger, 
when I believe that our country is in danger, our 
common life and our common liberties are in peril, 
then it is my duty to warn you, it is my duty to speak 
out and to continue to speak out as long as I have an 
opportunity to do so. 

You will say, if you went into my house and saved 
my goods, you might burn your hands, you might 
injure your clothes. True. It would still be my duty 
to risk my clothing and my hands in your service. 

You will say if you speak out today against these 
perils in the land, you may lose your job, you may 
lose your liberty. And I answer you again that as a 
citizen it is my sole obligation to speak out when I 
see peril ahead, and stand the loss of position or of 
liberty or any other loss that may be entailed in issu- 
ing the necessary warning. 

Gentlemen, I want to say to you that I want to see 
America free. I want to see liberty, opportunity and 
democracy here, as well as in every other country on 
earth. As long as America is not free, you are not free 
and I am not free. As long as any of us are in chains 
in this land, we are all in chains. As long as any are 
in ignorance in the land, we are in ignorance to that 
extent. As long as anybody starves in the land, we 
starve. As long as anybody suffers from despotism 
and tyranny, we are all suffering from despotism and 
tyranny. We belong to the body of this citizenship, 

209 



and we suffer in common with it, and we benefit in 
common with it. 

As I said a moment ago, the only principle upon 
which society can ever be built is the principle of each 
for all, and all for each. The principle of union, the 
principle of joint co-operative action for the benefit 
and the service of all. 

I believe that that action is the action of the people, 
the action of the masses, of mankind, and that sooner 
or later they will insist upon their rights. 

As Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people 
all of the time and all of the people some of the time, 
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." 

The peoples all over the world are coming into their 
own, they are going to come into their nvn more and 
more as the years go by. They are goin^ r to come into 
their own in the United States, and what happens to 
one of ufc is incidental to the great question of what 
happens to all of us. 

I have expressed my hopes, my ideals, my ambitions 
for liberty in America, and for brotherhood and peace 
among all people of the world. I have done what I 
could, and for the time being the matter is in your 
hands. 



210 



Seymour Stedman's 
Summing Up 

MR. STEDMAN : May it please the Court and you 
gentlemen of the jury, the evidence in this case is upon 
a very wide range, all the way from the University 
of Pennsylvania to international finance and politics; 
from the Mexican border to Bagdad, and in fact 
we have been engaged in digging into all parts of the 
world during the last two days to a certain extent; 
and all the evidence that has been admitted as a legal 
proposition and under your oaths as jurors has been 
admitted solely to define and for the purpose of de- 
ciding an issue within a very narrow compass. 

The indictment in this case, with the counts which 
have been submitted to you for your judgment, con- 
sists of two charges against two individuals — I am 
speaking of the corporation as an individual — the 
charge against the Rand School is that it attempted, 
wilfully attempted to cause insubordination, disloy- 
alty, refusal of duty and mutiny within the military 
and naval forces of the United States; and that the 
Rand School — I am not going to give it any other 
name but its popular name now — did obstruct the 
recruiting and enlistment service of the United States. 

These two charges against the Rand School are 
predicated and based upon the pamphlet called "The 
Great Madness." 

The same two charges are made against Scott Near- 
ing. You are to consider the evidence against each 

211 



one separately and apart from the other. It is true 
that you are to take cognizance of the fact that "The 
Great Madness" was published by the Rand School, 
but Nearing is not responsible for what may have been 
in the mind of the Rand School and its officers ; neither 
is the Rand School, for the purpose or what was in 
the mind of Nearing. So that considering this as 
jurors, they are two separate and distinct defendants, 
taking the evidence that has been admitted as to each 
separately, and determining from that the question of 
guilt or innocence. 

The Rand School was started some twelve years 
ago, its principal donor at that time was a woman who 
was generally known to the public — Carrie Rand, and 
who, I believe, was a pioneer abolitionist. They com- 
menced in a private building, an old stone building, a 
private residence. The scholarships continued to in- 
crease, the classes grew, and in 1917, upon the expira- 
tion of .a lease to the place, there were some of them 
who conducted — who suggested that they should pur- 
chase a new and a larger building. 

The photographs which have been offered in evi- 
dence here will picture to you the building which was 
under contemplation and which is now the home of 
the Rand School on 15th Street. 

In 1917, during the summer and the late spring, the 
entire forces of that organization were engaged in 
sending out letters and communications for the pur- 
pose of raising $60,000 or more. It was during that 
time that a young man, who had charge of the book 
department, was away on his vacation. Among those 
who had addressed classes and had become instructors 
in this institution were many who were very prominent 
in the universities in this country. The courses of the 
studies were somewhat extensive, running from his- 

212 



tory to office technique, civics and literary lines, even 
running classes in English for persons who were not 
proficient in the English language. 

They also had a big book department, the primary 
object of which was to carry a class of alert literature, 
and I mean by that a class of literature that might be 
distinguished from Thackeray or some of the writers 
whose books are only sold in large sets, and which 
involve a great expenditure, in handling. The books 
that they were handling were necessarily of a class 
which were readily sold and where storage expenses 
would not be great and the capital invested would be 
very limited ; books which were popular. 

There were contributors or writers of pamphlets 
whom they recognized as men of authority and whose 
views they generally understood, and whose manu- 
scripts were accepted without challenge outside of per- 
haps literary correction. 

They issued a year book, and your attention has 
been called to the year book of 1916, and also to the 
year book of 1917 and 1918. Mr. Barnes referred to 
that and quoted passages from that book, passages 
from the St. Louis platform of the Socialist Party, 
passages from the immediate program. You will find 
a great deal more in that book. You will find quota- 
tions from the platforms and documents of various 
political parties. Primarily, however, it is labor and 
socialistic. 

The book store was run for the purpose of selling 
books on all sides of the subject. The fact that in the 
Year Book they did not cover the ground of the World 
Almanac or the Daily News Almanac or the statistical 
record would prove nothing, because in that field there 
was no function for them to perform and no particular 
work, but there was something in the other. 

213 



For instance, if you gather up some books and 
look them over, you will find a record such as we find 
on pages 16, 17, 18 and 19 here, and I call your atten- 
tion to just a few instances. For instance, this page 
contains the different bills introduced in the legislative 
bodies throughout March, April, May, June, July and 
August in 1917. That is the record of the bills intro- 
duced to abolish child labor law restrictions and sus- 
pending the limitation of the hours of labor for chil- 
dren, and eliminating the restrictive conditions of 
women's work and general reactionary legislation. 

Now, it was a legitimate thing for the organization 
to publish \\at book. To publish these things tabu- 
lated in form so that anyone buying the book might 
read it. That certainly does not determine any mental 
attitude in opposition to recruiting or obstructing re- 
cruiting or having a tendency to create insubordina- 
tion and disloyalty. 

Now the issuing of this pamphlet "The Great Mad- 
ness" came about from the sending in of the manu- 
script, the book being written probably during the 
period that the selective draft law was in considera- 
tion, was received by the society after the first of 
August and published by them after the first of August 
and circulated mostly of course after that. 

The proprietor of the bookstore read portions of it 
and recognized the fact that it would be a good seller. 
It had Scott Nearing's name attached to it. And mark 
you, gentlemen of the jury, this evidence comes from 
the government's witnesses. They are to prove the 
case against the defendants. And when they put wit- 
nesses on the stand against the defendant called by 
them, and their own witnesses testified that they had 
no evil intent, they are precluded by that fact. In 
other words, the evidence as to the Rand School cir- 

214 



culating that, comes from the stand here and comes 
here vouched for by the government, and when a law- 
yer puts a witness on the stand, the prosecution or the 
defense, he vouches — he does not guarantee — but he 
vouches for the truthfulness of his statements. These 
were not men produced by us but by the prosecution. 
They put them on the stand and did that to show 
the printing and circulation. They proved the con- 
tents. Mr. Cohen, did you read it? Mr. some other 
man, did you read it? Mrs. Mailly, did you read it? 
What was the purpose of the examination? To show 
knowledge. Yes, and coupled along with such knowl- 
edge as they had, came the evidence that they did not 
publish it for the purpose of obstructing the recruiting 
and enlistment service, or for causing insubordination 
and disloyalty. The government's witnesses exoner- 
ated the defendant, this school. 

The charge in the indictment in this case is confined 
to the particular function named. We are not con- 
cerned with what may be generally termed as a "state 
of mind." The state of mind generally means nothing 
when it comes to the proof of a prosecution in a crim- 
inal case. The question as to whether the person 
proposed the accomplishment of the criminal act 
charged is material. Not only whether they proposed 
to accomplish the result, but now what result they 
intended to accomplish and pursued the course to ac- 
complish that end. In other words, one is knowingly 
and the other is intentionally. Intentionally, that is 
with the purpose. Wilfully, that is, with complete 
knowledge and a determination — a will to act and ac- 
complish the prohibited end. 

Is there any evidence in this case that the Rand 
School by publishing twenty thousand copies of a 56- 
page pamphlet, in the face of issuing some 350,000 
pieces of literature in a year, that these people were go- 

215 



ing to jeopardize the life of their school, with these four 
thousand pupils ; that they were going to take a chance 
on going to the penitentiary by issuing a 56-page 
pamphlet dealing with a theoretical cause of the war? 

Nothing but a war mania could have brought about 
a prosecution of that case before this jury or any jury, 
and you know it. Some very stupid person, possibly, 
might have issued a pamphlet of 56 pages to accom- 
plish the result of that kind, but no one w T ith brains, 
no one like these people, would ever do it in the world. 
If they wanted to obstruct the recruiting, do you sup- 
pose they would issue a pamphlet of this kind? Do you 
think they would have issued a theoretical document? 
Not at all. 

Let us see the ddcument they might have issued : 
Suppose it had been about four pages, and they said, 
"Young men of America, you have been reading the 
papers for the last four years — for the last three years, 
and you have read how heaps and heaps of men were 
dead between the trenches, that is between the French 
and German trenches, and how they poured oil on 
them, and they burned them, and the smoke, the blue 
smoke, the fumes went one way and the other, and the 
odors and the stench from it, and the thousands and 
thousands that are raving maniacs in Germany and in 
France." 

They would have pointed out the conditions that the 
newspapers were calling their attention to day after 
day; they would have called their attention to their 
peaceful homes and their mothers and their brothers 
and their sisters, and then the situation here. They 
could have emphasized the fact that the traditions of 
this country were to keep out of foreign alliances and 
foreign intrigues. All the way from the pest house all 
over the field they could have illustrated that the 
whole of Europe was one great madhouse, and could 

216 



have made references to arouse their passions and 
their prejudices, and then said, "Young men, are you 
going to enlist? We are civilized men. We are not 
beasts that we should be crowded into such as that. 
Young men, do not enlist. One will stand by the 
other." 

And they could have sent that out by the hundreds 
of thousands — they would have done so. That is w T hat 
I mean when I say that they would have done some- 
•thing active, something real in that line, if they had 
intended any such thing. That is what these people 
would have done, and that is what they would have 
had the courage to do, if they had believed in and de- 
sired that end. 

We must judge men and women by three general 
standards in a case of this kind : First, what was the 
defendant's object? Second, the intelligence and ac- 
complishments that they possessed and their ability 
to accomplish that object. Third, the courage to carry 
out that intent. 

There is only one theory upon which you can as- 
sume that these people committed the offense charged 
here, and that is that they are arrant cowards, that they 
did really believe that way, but they didn't have the 
courage to do it. Maybe. But I submit that we have 
created an issue here that does not sustain that theory. 
We would not have published a document for that 
purpose containing 56 pages, or a pamphlet such as 
has been offered here, and the district attorney knows 
that. He knows that very well. That is why he drew 
an economic issue into this case and why the govern- 
ment put in the other issue of bonds. That is a ques- 
tion of taxation and the determining of the question of 
the desirability of an action. 

Hundreds of people differ on the question of raising 
revenue by one method or another. President Wilson 

217 



insisted that it should be paid for as we went along. 
He changed his opinion on that, or perhaps if he didn't 
change his opinion, he didn't continue to emphasize it, 
because he saw that it was not perhaps a practical 
proposition. 

Now to take a few illustrations! I venture to say 
that in your experience, you never knew of a person 
being tried for smuggling and evidence being permit- 
ted to be introduced before the jury that they believed 
in free trade. Counsel in answering that in his open- 
ing, and I anticipated it, said : 

"If a person believed in free trade and they said I 
will not pay the tax, and then they were caught with 
diamonds, walking through the revenue office, that 
wovdd be competent evidence. ,, 

He put in his statement before you, "If they said I 
will not pay the tax," and then "the diamonds w r ere 
found in the pocket, that would be a part of the trans- 
action." 

That is entirely a different thing. He may probably 
tell you gentlemen when he sums up, that if a man 
was opposed to the tariff, that that would be com- 
petent evidence to prove as an element, that he was a 
smuggler. That is the question; would it? 

Suppose as opposed to a trust law, but believing that 
trusts are the logical and natural growth of industrial 
society and on a prosecution for forming a trust, the 
prosecution called the man to the stand and you say, 
"Mr. Roberts," or you say, "Mr. Rogers," or you use 
any other name, "Mr. Harriman," or any other man : 
"Do you believe in the organization of industry in its 
highest trustified form? A. Yes." It is contended 
that that is evidence to prove that they were parties 
in forming an illegal combination. 

We have had trust cases in the United States, a 
great many of them, and in all States of the Union. 

218 



If you can find one authority to show that any trust 
magnate on the stand was ever asked such a question 
and permitted to answer it, as an indication that he 
was guilty of a crime, I will retire from this case and 
ask my client to plead guilty. And yet that is pre- 
cisely the question that is asked of him. 

"You believe in war? No." That is a general state- 
ment, a general theory, not a specific one. It is the 
same as if a person believed in prohibition. I say, 
"You believe in prohibition? A. Yes." All right. 
Perhaps I had better say: "But you are opposed to 
prohibition." Perhaps in these times that would be 
more in point — "Do you oppose prohibition? A. 
Yes." Does that make you guilty of violating the law, 
for importing liquors against the law? 

Counsel in his opening statement said, "Why it is 
true that if a man says 'I am going to violate the pro- 
hibition law/ and then he puts a quarter on a dummy 
that goes up and down, you can introduce evidence to 
show that he was not intending to buy cigars." Natur- 
ally, that is part of an immediate act. 

If Nearing had said to anyone, when he sent this 
manuscript, "I hope the people will read that se they 
will become insubordinate; I hope that people will 
read that because I believe it will obstruct the recruit- 
ing or enlistment service," that would be a part of the 
proper evidence to produce here in regard to that 
matter. 

I want to suggest another illustration: We are 
charged here with obstructing the recruiting and en- 
listment service of the United States. That language 
is fairly plain, and we have a right to assume that it is 
written for the understanding of the average citizen 
of the United States. We have a right to assume that 
it is not simply a trick clause, to trick people. 

219 



Now ,what do you understand by "service"? And 
I understand I may say that maybe the court will 
disagree with me on my definition here. I am men- 
tioning it particularly because it goes to the question 
of wilfulness. 

What do you understand by "service"? A person 
who serves. What do you understand by the "civil 
service"? The civil laws where political qualifications 
are eliminated in favor of merit. Departments which 
are operated by the city, state or the government; in 
time of peace the United States can pass a law like this 
one, and in that law say, "Whoever shall obstruct the 
civil service of the government, the postal depart- 
ment," or any other department, "shall be punished by 
imprisonment from one to twenty years, or a fine of 
from one to ten thousand dollars." 

They can pass that precisely as this act, and instead 
of putting in "army" put in "postal service," or "patent 
office" or any other public department. 

Now, if you can carry this question to a purely busi- 
ness basis, in an act of that kind we will just reason 
a little on that subject and see where it would lead us 
to. 

I am a young man on the street, and I am addressing 
a meeting, and I say, "I would not recommend anyone 
to enter the service of the United States or of the city. 
You go into the civil service departments of the city 
or the government and you will find men who started 
there when thej; were young, and they have lost their 
ambition. They finally reached the position where 
they have not the courage to leave the service and 
strike out for themselves. They are demoralized, de- 
pendent upon their salary week by week, they became 
a part of that machine, you cannot tear them out of it. 
For that reason I would recommend that no man enter 



220 



the postal service or patent office or any other civil 
service department of the government. " 

Would I be obstructing it? According to the 
construction which Mr. Barnes has placed upon 
it today under this statute, I would be guilty 
of a crime. Do you believe that liberty is so 
absolutely paralyzed and dead in this country 
that you could not make the remarks which I 
have just mentioned? You do not. You know that 
if a law of that kind were passed, that I would still have 
a right to persuade an individual, and persuade a 
group, not to enter the postal department or to enter 
any of the City Hall positions, or to take a civil service 
position, because the opportunities outside were bet- 
ter. That would be a legitimate discussion. I would 
be appealing to their judgment upon that proposition. 
I would be appealing against the civil service law, 
against the civil service department, against what 
might be conceived by me as a sacrifice of their lives 
in the civil service position for life. That would be 
legitimate. 

When this law was passed and the average man read 
it he understood "service" to be exactly what the word 
means in plain English, and in every single dictionary 
that may be found in the English language. You can 
not define service except on the theory that you are 
serving someone, some group, or state or some indi- 
vidual. 

Counsel may suggest, that these are times of war, 
and therefore a different rule applies. My answer is 
that it does not apply; that the same rules of 
law apply at one time as apply at another. He will 
tell you that it was unnecessary to show actual ob- 
struction. I say that it is. The indictment in this case 
says they obstructed. It does not say that Nearing 
attempted to obstruct. The indictment does not say 

221 



that the Rand School attempted an obstruction; the 
count under which they are charged there says that 
they did, intending voluntarily to obstruct the recruit- 
ing and enlistment service of the United States, and 
it is necessary for them, under this count of the indict- 
ment, to prove the obstruction, not that it was calcu- 
lated to do that, not that it was possible, not that it 
possibly might do something, or that the natural rea- 
sonable possibility of creating an obstruction ; we are 
charged here with an obstruction, and under that it 
is necessary, in my judgment, to show by evidence 
that warrants you in the belief beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that there was an actual obstruction. 

Counsel may contend and say, well, that which 
would naturally lead a person, who was maki* g a rush 
for a recruiting station, to hesitate, to pause, wjuld be 
an obstruction. That is an interpretation which coun- 
sel may place on it. It may be an interpretation which 
the court may place on it. I will assume it was ex- 
actly the argument or even that it is true. In other 
words, I will assume that obstruction does not mean 
an obstruction, but it means a mental condition where 
a person hesitates when he is going, we will say, to 
the recruiting station. Then I say that in that cate- 
gory they proved nothing, they failed to prove it be- 
cause — they lack evidence, and it is merely a conclu- 
sion they have been unable to prove that anyone was 
actually affected that way. But his contention is that 
they don't have to prove it because that is the natural 
meaning and intent of those words. I reply, let us 
assume that that is so. If in the course of nine or ten 
months a leaflet has been out, and you find anyone 
who has been affected by it, with the public forces at 
the hand of the district attorney, the command of the 
secret service and the government's police detectives, 
and the men who are in private organizations in camps 

222 



of these conscientious objectors, and they have found 
no one during all that time who comes forward and 
says, "I read it and I did not enlist." What would be 
your natural inference ? What can you draw from that 
except that it didn't have that effect? 

In other words, if a man is five feet from a man and 
he shoots forty shots at him, and he is a good shot, 
and doesn't hit him, there is but one conclusion, and 
that is, that he didn't intend to hit him. 

If there are twenty thousand pamphlets going out 
and not a single individual is brought in who is influ- 
enced by it, the logic of it is that the persons that 
read it never understood it in the way the prosecuting 
attorney has understood it. And he will not bring in 
any one here, he has not suggested that anyone was 
influenced by it at all. 

If you knew that the Postmaster of New York, or 
that the Postmaster General with the corps of officers 
in his employ, was reading every particle of literature 
that was in circulation, and especially that coming 
from organizations that they regarded as not wholly 
in favor of our interest in the war, and that those 
articles were copyrighted, and that it went for one 
month, for tw ^ months, for three months, for four 
months, for five months, in fact from August to May, 
without a single protest from the postal department, 
would you regard that as a fair circumstance to indi- 
cate that not only the defendants, but the government 
departments did not regard it as violating this section? 

Counsel will argue that they are two different de- 
partments. That is true. He will argue that one does 
not necessarily have any control of the other. That 
is true. He may suggest that Mr. Lamar is solicitor- 
general for the Post Office, and that he has in his de- 
partment, operating particularly on these matters 
John Lord O'Brien, who is particularly in charge of 

223 



those matters, and I say to you, if the men who are in 
charge'of the postal department, and are looking for 
violations, did not find this criminal in its character, 
it is a circumstance to be reckoned with in determining 
the question of whether it was obviously and plainly 
a violation of the law, and as to whether it came within 
the provisions which are denounced by the act. 

The first proposition that we called to your atten- 
tion was this, whether you as jurors will consider that 
the reasonable hypothesis of innocence, was not dis- 
carded with the throwing out of the two counts which 
were the first in the indictment in this case. However, 
we are not concerned with that. We are concerned, 
however, with the subject of a reasonable doubt. 

We are concerned with the presumption of inno- 
cence which surrounds the defendants in this case, and 
that presumption if carried into this case negatives 
the theory upon which they now ask for a conviction. 

When I think of the evidence in this case in its 
entirety, I find that it occurs to me that there are re- 
latively few details to really argue. As I listened to 
Mr. Nearing this morning while he was addressing 
you, I was wondering how a man could address a jury, 
discussing a general economic theory which he ad- 
vanced so consistently and so consistent with the the- 
ories which w r ere advanced from the witness stand, 
and yet leave any doubt in any juror's mind or a dis- 
trict attorney's mind as to what his general bent was 
and what his general purpose and object was. How 
a person who has been so open, and so plain in his 
statements, and the books w T hich he has written, which 
disclose his entire motive and his entire object and his 
entire purpose could leave any question in the mind of 
any man as to whether or not he intended to specifi- 
cally do the thing which is charged in this case. If 

224 



it were not that we were in war times a case of this 
kind would never be brought, and I do not mean by 
that, that if it were not for war there might be a 
statute of this kind. But I do mean that when an in- 
dictment was returned in this case, it was returned as 
is plainly evident, to stop a certain line of discussion 
and not because there was actually any faith in 
the fact that a crime was committed, or a jury would 
find that there had been a crime committed. 

Mr. Barnes down in his heart does not believe that 
there has been, that either of these defendants in this 
case are guilty of the crime charged. He is perform- 
ing his duty. He is clearing up the remnant cases that 
were started in this court during the time when that 
war was in its height, and in its progress, and when 
they thought that someone might step over the border 
line. He will never be able to suggest before you any 
theory upon which intelligent men and intelligent 
scholars and intelligent women would issue a docu- 
ment of this kind and to accomplish the result which 
he says they intended in this case. 

The court will instruct you that motive does not 
make any difference. That is, supposing he was inter- 
ested in the child labor question. Supposing on that 
question you can picture the children twelve years old 
and thirteen years of age in the factories, which aroused 
his thoughts and ambitions to change their mode of life. 
You might even picture hundreds of them standing 
here at the bar pleading for him who pleaded for them 
when they were unable to speak for themselves, yet 
that motive would not justify the acts charged here 
because whether his object was to do good or bad, the 
court may instruct you it makes no difference. We 
will concede that for the sake of argument, but we then 
meet the other : If that wasn't his purpose, what w T as 

225 



it? Was it the purpose of the Rand School, when they 
published this book, to cause — that is was the result in- 
subordination and obstruction or was that the object 
of their conduct? 

The fact that they were against the war is not evi- 
dence that can be used against these gentlemen on 
this issue. The issue is not that, and there is nothing 
in the evidence here that he was or that the school 
was, except "The Great Madness." There is nothing 
in "The Great Madness" where there is any solicita- 
tion or advice — and I use "solicitation" and "advice" 
because they were used in the indictment — nothing 
there about soliciting anyone to become insubordinate 
or not to enlist. 

What is their theory? Their theory is this: We 
have gone into the language of the book. There is no 
solicitation in the language of the book; there is no 
advice given not to enlist, but did it have that effect? 

First, in point, did it have that effect upon a person 
who was predisposed not to enlist because that would 
be monstrous, that would not be considerable? In 
other words, a person who would issue a book describ- 
ing the form and the method of the commission of a 
murder, as a part of a story, and someone went and 
took that and committed murder, you cannot hold the 
man who wrote the book as guilty of murder, as that 
is a part of his story. 

If a person advances a theory and someone predis- 
posed in the beginning says, that that forfeited him 
in his belief not to do what he knew he should do, and 
said that that deterred him from doing it, that would 
then not be within the purview of the intent which we 
are trying to prove here. It is not a matter of, did it 
have that effect on anybody. It is this : What was the 

226 






necessary and the natural effect of that book on the 
average normal individual, and would it in such indi- 
viduals result in obstruction? Would it on such officers 
and persons in the service cause them to mutiny or to 
be disloyal? 

Now, if the effect must be upon the average human 
being and not on one who is demented or predisposed, 
then cannot you say, that they would be able to pro- 
duce some witnesses, some one who would say that 
they were affected by it? If the government had any 
such, do you think for a moment that they would not 
have been produced, if there had been the slightest 
evidence of anybody that had been affected that way? 
Would this have the effect upon thinking people, the 
result of producing what the government claims was 
calculated to be produced, would it have the result up- 
on the average human being? And suppose there were 
a thousand people in the country who had heard a cer- 
tain thing, placed before them a certain idea, don't you 
suppose that there would be at least a few persons of 
those thousand who could be found who would testify 
to that effect upon them, if it was calculated to have 
effect upon anybody, and did have an effect upon any- 
body? If that is so, would not there be one of them 
here to prove this was a fact in at least one instance? 

Gentlemen, I will hurry along. The Court will in- 
struct you in this case as to the law, but I want to 
return to the Rand School for a moment. 

A corporation is responsible for the acts of its agent 
within the rule of the real or implied scope of his au- 
thority. In explanation of that let me say that if a 
person is running a book store and an agent of the 
book store went out and bought a ton of dynamite it 

227 



would be perfectly apparent he would not be acting 
within the scope of his authority. 

So that if the man went out and made that purchase 
for some purpose or other, that would not be in the 
direct line of his work, that is, within the real author- 
ity that he had, that would be an individual act of his. 
That is, if a corporation does what it does, it has to do 
that through its agents and board of directors. If 
the board of directors had instructed him to go out 
and perform some specific act, then that is within his 
scope of authority, that is, within the authority dele- 
gated to him by that board. 

Now in this instance the boy who was in the book 
store was not instructed by them to publish this par- 
ticular thing, this particular book, in violation of law. 
Now bear this thing in mind, that there were lawyers 
on that board of directors: there was Mr. Hillquit at 
one time ; and there were other men of affairs on that 
board of directors, for instance, like Mr. Lee, an Alder- 
man of the City of New York, was also associated with 
them on that board, and he was the educational direc- 
tor. All these persons were associated on that board. 

Now unless they specifically directed the man to do 
it, or if it was not within the implied scope of his au- 
thority, they cannot be held liable for the character of 
literature that they published. 

In other words, suppose you went over to a pub- 
lishing firm, like Houghton, Mifflin Company, or some 
man went over there and handed to a clerk a manu- 
script of a book to have it published and the book was 
a book on burglary and that book was published ; and 
that book treated on methods of burglarizing the safe 
in a bank, the use of various tools, electric torches and 
electric drills and possible curtain effects to be used 
in connection therewith, and all of those things, and 

228 



such a book was published by that concern, you could 
easily see that the stockholders of that company could 
not be held responsible unless this particular book and 
its publications, that is, the contents of the book and 
the authorization for the publication thereof had been 
brought to their attention and they had passed upon 
it before it was published. 

Of course, along with that, if you found that they 
had been publishing books or treatises on the art of 
picking pockets and other crimes of that character, 
then you might well say it is within the same class- 
ification of books that they have been publishing and 
you could well say that it was their design, and that 
it was the same general purpose of their entire litera- 
ture. 

Now it will be pointed out that the general literature 
published by the Rand School was for the purpose of 
violating no law of the United States, military or 
otherwise. And at this time it may be proper to call 
your attention along with the other literature to which 
I have referred, to the books that have been published 
in opposition to socialism, to the fact that there were 
publications put out by this book store in favor of the 
war, that is, for the side of the propagandists also, 
gotten out by those who were specifically in favor of 
the war and its conduct, as well as those who were 
opposed to it. 

And in that connection I come to the "Menace of 
Peace" by George D. Herron, and to a passage in that 
book which says: 

"A peace based upon a drawn battle between the 
Germanic Powers and the Allies is nothing else than 
the capitulation of the world to Prussian might and 
mastery. And it would not only be a German triumph 
that such a peace would procure, but a triumph im- 

229 



measurably more terrible in its full and final results 
than Germany could have won by force of arms, even 
had they been successful. 

"I believe I am safe in predicting that the victory 
of the Allies will lead to the banishment of war from 
our planet. But if Germany remains armed, the rest 
of the world must remain armed also, and the arma- 
ment increased instead of decreased. A defeated Ger- 
many is the only condition of universal peace. A peace 
that left Germany with her weapons in her hands 
would be no peace but a preparation for wars im- 
measurably more terrible than the one that now baffles 
our hopes for humanity. Germany would soon be 
ready to fight more advantageously than she is fight- 
ing now; and, against the greater German menace, 
England and France would be obliged to maintain the 
large conscriptive armies their peoples detest. 

"The present German mind is in truth the deadliest 
enemy, the harshest and yet subtlest seducer that the 
soul of the world has ever had to meet." 

By the way, this that I am reading here is in italics. 

"Say not we are the enemies of the German race 
who thus speak. Not we, but themselves, are the real 
enemies of the German peoples. We stand against 
that for which Germany fights; we are against the 
Prussian idea, against its power over Germany, 
against its purpose to conquer; but for the German 
peoples we wish only well. It is for their freedom as 
well as for ours we contend, and contend with pain in 
our hearts. Germany's true lovers are they who now 
stand against her, they who make war upon the lie 
that enslaves and slays her soul. The France that 
Germany has invaded is sacrificing her sons for Ger- 

230 



many as well as for herself. There are Germans, yes, 
there are thousands of understanding Germans, who 
are today praying for Germany's defeat as her only 
hope of salvation. As Edward Bernstein has recently 
said, 'Unless the war ends for Germany in definite 
defeat' her middle class parties will 'by hook or crook' 
maintain her existing militarism, and the menace of 
German militarism means the eventual madness of 
mankind. 

"To me, there are no two ways, there is but one way 
wherein believers in freedom and fraternity, or they 
who hold to the true socialist faith, or the followers 
of the faith that was in Christ, may consistently walk. 
Before us, beckoning along that way, are the banners 
of Alfred of England and Albert of Belgium. The 
swords of Jeanne d'Arc and St. Louis are x there ; and 
the tread of the Garibaldians and the first French 
Republicans. The voices of Milton and Mazzini and 
Lincoln; and the visions of the Divine Assisian and 
the Patmos Apostle." 

This is a book of the style that they had on sale 
there that was in favor of w r ar, this was one among 
many that they had. The point of it all is to show 
that there was literature on both sides. They were not 
asking people to their store to buy only one 
specific line of literature, but they gave both kinds, 
both sides, each was equally free to be purchased that 
would throw light either on one side or the other of 
the proposition. 

Now you must believe that within Karpf's actual au- 
thority now, that he published this pamphlet, and that 
he published it with the intent of violating the law; 
that they authorized him to violate the law and that 
it was within the implied scope of his authority, one 
of those two. That is, considering first the general 
work and the general publishing that he got out, that 

231 



they or he expected, and it was within their obvious 
intention, that they were publishing the work quite in 
violation of law. 

Now as to reasonable doubt. Of course some of you 
who have served on juries have had that explained. 
Generally, courts define a reasonable doubt as a doubt 
based on reason which you know. That has always ap- 
pealed to me as not as clear as has been defined by 
Chief Justice Field of the Supreme Court of Massach- 
usetts, who defines reasonable doubt as a doubt which 
would cause a reasonable and prudent man to pause 
and hesitate in the greater affairs and transactions of 
life. 

Bear in mind, gentlemen, that the presumption of 
innocence is always with the defendant and if, after 
considering all the evidence any juror in his mind 
pauses and hesitates as to what his verdict may be, 
the law steps in and demands a verdict of not guilty. 

Now I doubt not the Court will say to you and so 
instruct you, that you have no right to conjure up 
capricious doubts, fanciful theories, for the purpose of 
creating doubt when no doubt should in fact exist. 
That is true equally as to your duty after there is some 
doubt. You should to conjure up capricious reasoning 
or fanciful reasoning, for the purpose of destroying or 
dispelling the doubt to try to say that there is no doubt 
when there is. 

That explanation works equally on both sides. 

Now returning again for a moment to Nearing, be- 
fore closing: the Army and Navy League issued leaf- 
lets and issued their other publications, which were not 
for general circulation. Mr. Nearing commented on 
them and called your attention to them. The whole 
tenor of their publications from beginning to end was 
one of commercialism. In no instance in all that I read 
from there did they maintain that their argument for 

232 



preparedness was to secure or maintain human rights 
permanently above all rights; neither was it even for 
a localized national integrity. 

Just one or two portions that I wish to read to you 
from here: 

"Do Americans realize that one of the reasons why 
we must of necessity be intensely concerned in the 
submarine and trade warfare now waged between 
Germany and the Allies is that in not having any ships 
of our own with which to carry our four billion dollars 
worth of merchandise and the German ships being 
unavailable, that we will lose our two billion dollars 
worth of export trade unless merchant shipping of the 
Allies are free and able to carry our goods?" 

"This question faces us squarely in this country: 

"Will we continue to jeopardize our four billion- 
dollar trade with the world by trusting to luck, fate, 
or the good will of fighting nations which may have 
the shipping in which to carry our goods to safety 
or destruction?" 

Again we see the idea is to afford avenues for the 
products of labor to be reinvested in foreign lands — 
another capitalistic outgrowth. 

Then again : 

"German standards of militarism w r ould, of course, 
be impossible among Anglo-Saxons — " I don't know 
why they so defined it, and limited it — "but this does 
not minimize the fact that world empire is the only 
natural and logical aim of a nation that desires to 
remain a nation. 

"We have now on our hands, it seems to me, a white 
elephant to some, a Republican Empire, and no longer 
such a question of doubting whether or not to have a 
navy as large as England's. The navy, for a coast 
line such as the United States possesses, a navy which 
could uphold the Monroe Doctrine, now moribund, 

233 



such a navy must be at least twice the size of the 
British navy. And the first step to be taken so as to 
secure that sized navy is for the American citizen to 
shake off the timorous manner which is our charac- 
teristic, in asserting our Federal rights. The imper- 
ialism of the American is a duty, a credit to humanity. 
He is the highest type of imperial master. He makes 
beautiful the land he touches, beautiful with moral and 
the physical cleanliness which sounds rather prosaic 
but is nevertheless the principal, happiness for the 
savage if not for the imperialist." 

We are getting now to where we are going t(j> have 
the savage in our midst satisfied. 

"England certainly owns or has in some way a very 
large portion of the earth's land surface and practi- 
cally has for some time, until quite recently, controlled 
the oceans which cover the hidden land surface. There 
should be no doubt that even with all possible morals, 
it is the absolute right of a nation to live to its full 
intensity, to expand, to found colonies, to get richer 
and richer by any proper means such as armed con- 
quest, commerce, diplomacy." 

In reply to this, when we are already developing 
along those lines, with those theories advanced by 
such governmental authorities as this that I have 
quoted you, is it any wonder that Nearing, in reading 
it, expressed his opinions as any American having the 
good of his country at heart, of mankind at heart, 
would have expressed them, or at least laid them be- 
fore his countrymen for their consideration. The 
same theory that the economic basis provided, he em- 
phasizes. What is the difference? This: they are 
publishing one for commercializing, and the other ar- 
ticle, let me recall to you, was insisting upon this policy 
so that there might be large dividends to munitions 
manufacturers, etc. Their publication went put as a 

234 



trade journal, to give information to those who were 
guarding the commerce of the country, those who un- 
derstood and are prosecuting or sustaining the indus- 
trial institutions and welfare of the country. 

As against that, his goes to another class : they went 
to the man on the street, to the man in the factory, or 
the elevator, to the average man who has as much 
right to have a full and complete knowledge of the 
facts presented to his mind as any other man has. 

The distinction between the autocracy and the de- 
mocracy is the fact that the man on the street has a 
right to all the facts necessary to judge, and after 
forming his judgment to attempt to cause changes in 
the opinion of those who are supposed to represent 
him. 

We believe, at least in theory, that our purpose of 
having different parties is that a few men have not 
the right by a chance of an election, to arrogate to 
themselves the complete guiding of the destiny of the 
American people, that they being wholly informed and 
they having the facts and knowledge sufficient to 
know to what extent their country and its systems and 
policies are drafted — that is the common people's right. 
There can be no policy in a republican government 
that is definite or settled, if the average man repre- 
senting the minority of the people of the country, 
has not the right to express his opinions based on all 
of these general facts which are common knowledge, 
and we claim that he has a right to urge his theories 
to convince if he can, the people to his way of think- 
ing. The moment you strike down the right of those 
having theories to advance, to try to bring the majority 
of the people to their way of thinking, you strike down 
the right under the constitution of the minority to try 
to have their opinions adopted by the majority. The 
moment you destroy the privilege of a minority to 

235 



speak, whether it is a single individual or a party, you 
stop progress, and all chance of progress, and you 
simply ossify and become fixed in character and type. 
If they are not allowed to tell you what else they 
believe, and to meet the objections to the existing 
conditions, we would then have imperial America to 
all intents and purposes. 

I say even to you now, that I doubt not, once we 
take the position, that if the system under which we 
live is to prevail, America must be imperialistic, that 
is indispensable and it must be so of necessity. There 
is no other existence possible in the direction in which 
she is leaning if her citizens do not have the oppor- 
tunity of entering their objections, not only one or 
two, but what occur to them by way of advocating 
their theories. Because, in becoming imperialistic, 
you begin investing entirely in foreign lands and the 
time comes that the foreign fields of investment are 
exhausted. Then what happens? They have been 
deflecting your industry from the states, of Connecti- 
cut, of Kentucky, of Maine, Washington, Florida, or 
any other states of the Union, and the investments are 
made in foreign lands and when you make your invest- 
ments outside of any country, that is outside of one's 
own country, there surely will come a time when those 
investments will proceed still farther, just as you start 
a current going from within, it keeps going and en- 
larging until it gets to the coast, and then it goes over 
the coast line, and then as it goes over the coast line 
ultimately you run down to where you can go no fur- 
ther, and in this case in your investments and exports. 
If you go outside of your own states, it follows that 
with the constant expansion, which is the only life 
under which the socialists contend the country can 
exist under what we speak of as the capitalistic system, 
the point comes when you can go no further. It is 

236 



there, where the Army and Navy League differ en- 
tirely from Nearing. Nearing is stating a solution, 
when you reach that point, and his is an attempt to 
point that out before Ave reach it, that it may not come 
to us unadvised. 

I want to read a portion, a couple of paragraphs 
here, beginning with the third book in "Social Sanity,'' 
which was an attempt to show by that book : 

"That changes were bound to occur, and that if we 
are wise and far-sighted, and if we understand what 
is coming, they can occur sanely and intelligently and 
constructively, but that if we are stupid and dogged, 
and refuse to see what is coming, the changes come, 
overtake and wreck our civilization. " 

That is not the language of a man who is reckless 
of the law, reckless of his responsibility, or who be- 
lieves in chaos or discord. That is not the language 
of a man who is going out into the country counselling 
and persuading or trying to get half a dozen soldiers 
not to go into the army, not to go into the service 
themselves, not with that sort of language ; nor is that 
the language of a man who is going around to try to 
induce a corporal to kill his captain or a private to kill 
his colonel. An idiotic proposition of that kind is al- 
most impossible for you gentlemen or for me to think 
of, and think of this case seriously, for a moment. But 
if we use the ordinary logic and reasoning that we use 
in our ordinary affairs, you see how impossible it is 
for us to think so. 

Suppose that a man should come in here and state, 
we will say into some railroad station or any other 
place, and state that when the train comes in he is 
going to stop the functioning of the government, he is 
going to overcome the present government by stop- 
ping the sale of postage stamps, and he is going to 
urge that on the people. Such a proposition as that, 

237 



such a suggestion as that would appeal to you as ut- 
terly absurd and impossible. 

The same proposition might be applied to the stop- 
ping of men going into the police service or the secret 
service, and he might take the position that he was 
going in this way to overcome all the present forms 
of government, especially the one under which he is 
living. You gentlemen can see how absurd such a 
proposition as that would be. 

Right here you come and take up this proposition, 
here a lone man, a lone individual, issues a pamphlet 
for the purpose, it is claimed, of stopping voluntary 
enlistments or recruiting in an army of five million 
men, with the public sentiment and the public press 
in thousands of papers large and small, and speakers 
in the cities and the towns, all of them whooping it 
up and declaring aloud the necessity for the war, and 
against that public sentiment, against that press, 
against all these periodicals, and against the stump 
speeches, and the counselling of these thousands of 
men, and against the private organizations that are 
in existence in many of the states for the purpose of 
rooting out pro-Germanism, etc., all over the country, 
throughout every state and city, this man alone, with 
the Rand School, publishes a couple of pamphlets for 
the purpose of effectively stopping enlistment in the 
army. I cannot conceive of anything more absurd. 
It is too bad that Mark Twain is not alive now, he is 
the man that really ought to defend a case of this kind. 

"I tried to point out," says he "that the ruling class 
in society, the people in charge and in control of any 
society would do well to realize that progress is bound 
to be made, and do well to study the problems of 
progress and see that they were sane rather than the 
chaotic progress. Changes will come anyway, and 

238 



the question is whether they will come wisely or in- 
sanely." 

What do you think of a man writing like that? And 
he writes like that before we are in our present situa- 
tion, which is more or less serious. We all regret the 
present industrial situation both in the United States 
and in other countries. We live in a country where 
suggestions from men of ideas are the foundation of 
our government, and those ideas, whether lawful or 
unlawful, the expression of them you can never pre- 
vent except upon the theory of abolishing the govern- 
ment's own act in passing the First Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. You cannot sup- 
press expression. The only thing you can do is drive 
it into subterranean methods. No country has ever 
succeeded except, perhaps, one, and that one existed 
in the thirteenth century where the persecution was so 
intense, that it practically destroyed their life, their 
national life, and at the same time those with religious 
views different from their own; and yet in the end. 
notwithstanding hundreds and hundreds were tortured, 
buried, killed, yet the movement continued on until we 
reached the point in the latter part of the eighteenth 
century or even in the seventeenth century, that real 
progress could only come from permitting men to dis- 
cuss different subjects, especially those pertaining to 
the state. 

And along with that, let me mention another thing : 
it may be suggested by counsel that the first amend- 
ment is not an absolute license to say what you wish 
or what you will. For instance, you cannot slander 
a man or a woman, if you do, you are amenable for 
that. That is not a parallel instance, nor a license for 
any such action. 

If, for instance I call a man a thief, and people know 
of it, he is specifically injured by that. If I say "here 

239 



is a storekeeper selling or putting sand in sugar," he 
is specifically injured by that, and he may sue me for 
it. If I say "this man is a leper," and he is shunned by 
society, he may prosecute me. You know how that is, 
and see the difference between that and discussing an 
economic policy, yes, of course; because there is no 
special damage in discussing a general policy. 

There may be the class damage. For instance, thou- 
sands of men have their money invested in breweries 
and distilleries throughout the United States. The 
prohibition law is passed by legislative enactment, and 
instantly that mass of property is destroyed or dam- 
aged greatly, and that man may receive compensation 
or those men may receive compensation, depending 
upon whether or not in the Court of Claims, the Gov- 
ernment recognizes it, and that is the way those ques- 
tions are tested, when millions and millions of dollars' 
worth of property are destroyed and wiped out. That 
is a class damage. 

And men in business, they are buying and selling 
goods, and the raising or lowering of tariff, along with 
it the industry rises or falls; that is a class damage. 
That is not a damage to a person. 

So the suggestion that it does not guarantee free 
expression may be true, but it does not apply to the 
question of discussing a governmental policy. And 
along with that proposition of the prohibition we have 
it tallying to some extent with the theories which are 
after all simply an analysis of events and conditions 
and prospective conditions — we have the theories ad- 
vanced by the defendant. 

A defendant can have any theory he w T ants, legally, 
and if he believes that he can secure a majority of the 
American people to agree with him, all well and good, 
then his theory prevails. But if they disagree with him, 
then we say he is not right, those who do not agree 

240 



with him. We only know of one way of advance and 
that is by getting the majority to agree with you. 
That is his trouble. If he gets them, then it is done 
that way, and in that way the majority of the people 
believe in that theory which is not his theory today; 
but the minority today fail to accept the theory of the 
majority and reserve to themselves the right to still 
convince the other people that they are wrong. 

You cannot take away the right of the minority to- 
day without realizing that tomorrow you may need 
the minority. There is no chance that you will be in 
the majority a day hence or a month hence or a year 
hence, with the kaleidoscopic changes going on, no 
man knows when his so-called status in a religious 
sense or his ideas or his point of view may be attacked. 
They may be modified by great changes that are com- 
ing, and by important circumstances. 

I mentioned the First Amendment to the Constitu- 
tion quoted by the defendant not to antagonize the 
theory of the law, which no doubt the Court will give 
you, and when I say no doubt, of course no man can 
guess exactly what the Court will give the jury, no 
more than I can, counsel's argument, except with a 
measured degree, he may say that the First Amend- 
ment is not, and cannot be used by the defendant to 
excuse the commission of a crime. That is true. 

In other words, if Scott Nearing says, "I am going 
to stop recruiting ; I am going to obstruct the service ; 
I am going to create insubordination; I am going to 
protect myself under the First Amendment to the Con- 
stitution" — if that was in his mind of course he could 
not use it; but if he believed in that, believed in it 
with the faith which Americans for a long time had 
in it, and were proud of it, and we were brought up 
to be proud of it in our schools, we then would go to 
the question as to whether or not he wilfully — it would 

241 



be an element in determining, whether he wilfully was 
violating a law with which he is charged with a viola- 
tion of here. If he had full faith in the fact, that is 
if he thought that the interpretation of that gave him 
the right to express his belief, then it would go to that. 
In other words, to show that there was not a stubborn 
and reckless attempt to break the law which he has 
been charged with violating here. 

In this case the minor act charged, the one that you 
are to determine really by your verdict, so far as the 
record is concerned, is limited; and the other one is 
quite broad ; that is the one to the degree of tolerance 
which the American people propose now to show, and 
which they must show now or show not at all, — I 
mean by that, you cannot make one degree of law dur- 
ing war time and one during peace ; and we will show 
in the other the degree to which the American people 
reverence traditions of their country, and revere the 
constitution. 

I think, and I may say, to you gentlemen, that the 
history of this country can hardly be written with- 
out a list of the names of a few of my ancestors. I 
think that the tradition of this country on the con- 
scription law was the most alarming thing that had 
taken place. What do we understand the word, tradi- 
tion, to mean? It is the habit of thought. I still be- 
lieve the ordinary man moves his body virtually by the 
development of personal habits. He has a way of look- 
ing when he is crossing the street. His feet move 
habitually, he has learned it after a struggle, a con- 
siderable struggle, when he was an infant ; he has cer- 
tain habits of dress and in doing work ; and it follows 
a constant mental attitude which was a habit as of the 
people of this country for many, many years, that we 
would not send an expeditionary force to any other 
country ; that European concerns were none of ours— 

242 



I don't say but what they may have been, but I am 
showing what the thought generally was ; that we did 
not believe in standing armies and if an army were 
needed we would simply call upon the States, and let 
each State furnish its quota in such way as it might 
be able. 

England resisted conscription for years, for a long 
time; Ireland resisted it, and England went about to 
enforce it, but it was never enforced upon them. 
Canada did not enforce conscription at all until after 
we did it. Australia not at all. We changed almost 
over night. Can you wonder that Lord Northcliffe 
said about the American people, when looking at them 
through a window of one of our buildings: "A most 
docile people, a most docile people." 

And when a nation breaks its habits so easily, it 
indicates that there is a want in the measure of stabil- 
ity which we ordinarily expect in an individual who 
has fixed habits, and people who have kept true to 
these traditions, that is, that the privilege and the 
right of speaking should be protected completely un- 
der the law. 

We need never fear one great and substantial prin- 
ciple and that is, say what you please, accept the law 
as the majority declare it; that is, that power must 
reside with a free and pure selection, with a full and 
complete opportunity for every voter and every per- 
son who should be a voter — and by that I include the 
women — the right to express their opinions, and when 
that law is made, you will accept and obey it, always 
carrying with that the right to oppose that, to change 
that, to remedy that, to modify or repeal it. With 
that we will have absolute and final safety to our 
course of progress and development, but the moment 
you strike that down, you can measure almost in years, 
the time when those who will have sown the wind will 

243 



reap the whirlwind, that is inevitable. Neither can 
any body or group of men belong in the majority who 
attempt to hold up the rights of others and stifle 
thought and growth of expressions of others. You can- 
not do that, gentlemen, you cannot do it in conscience, 
you cannot do it. 

And still we have this question right here : this man 
here has expressed his honest, conscientious view and 
he is trying to carry out his theory of the economic 
purposes and programme; he is a member of a politi- 
cal party which has millions and millions of men both 
in the United States and other countries. As he de- 
clared on the stand, they were in the army of 
Germany and France, Italy and England, the soldiers 
there were socialists, and had declared their belief as 
such; the Italian socialists believed that war was the 
result of economic conflict, those in France the same 
as those in Germany, as well as in other places, and 
they believed that the economic support of economic 
life of the nation was vital, and that economically you 
can bring about changes. 

It was absolutely after that kind of a declaration of 
their feelings that industry and social conditions that 
existed there could be changed by such methods, that 
with that in their minds they went into the army and 
the boys assumed, that is, those that went, that is the 
youthful and younger members in the United States, 
assumed that they had a right to know the truth. Is 
it to our credit, that we equipped an army, or raised 
an army by fancy fairy tales? Can we only depend 
on the safety of this country by assuming that it is 
quite proper to raise an army by half the facts and dis- 
torted statements? If the facts were on the side of 
those in opposition to Nearing, what have we to fear? 
How many newspapers were denied the right to freely 
print the facts? How many newspapers in Buffalo, 

244 



Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, St. Paul — hun- 
dreds of them. How many magazines continuously 
run off by the ream from the press, from the "Saturday 
Post" to the "New Republic," one paper after another, 
one magazine after another. The churches, the speak- 
ers, the Congressmen, Senators, the President, if they 
were right, don't you think they could tolerate one 
man who was wrong? And if the one man is right 
don't you think it is quite right that the majority 
should begin to realize that they are wrong? 

During the War of the Rebellion, the newspapers 
criticised Abraham Lincoln, and there was talk, and 
attempts made to take steps to suppress them — and 
by the way only one or two editions of one or two 
papers were suppressed — and he said "No, if they are 
right, their opinions should prevail against mine, and 
those associated with me; if they are wrong, then in 
the course of time they will be discovered by the 
people and it will do no harm." That is a safe prin- 
ciple upon which to proceed. 

Our country was not invaded, it was not in such 
a grave difficulty as to warrant the arrest or indicting 
of Scott Nearing in a case of this kind for the issuing 
of a pamphlet of this kind of forty-four pages, and its 
publication by the Rand School. A man with a wife 
and with a couple of young children, four and six years 
of age, is taking no chance, is not proposing to enter 
the penitentiary and leave their happiness and their 
home, he is not walking away from his fireside, he is 
not walking away from his friends and leaving his 
family surroundings and his friends and his associates 
and writing a pamphlet committing an offense of this 
kind, if it was an offense, as I stated before, if he in- 
tended to do a thinsr like that he would have done it 
directly and openly and it would have really resulted 
in something, the actual commission of something, 

245 



and there would have something actually resulted 
therefrom, it would not have simply then been regarded 
as a readable instrument. 

. The reasonable doubts that you are supposed and 
required to have eliminated from your mind before 
finding a verdict of guilty are not presumptions alone 
of law, but they are human presumptions. They have 
a deeper basis than merely legal form, — humanity. It 
is only by thinking of all of the facts surrounding a 
given circumstance, a man does certain things, we 
think of his family, his friends and society in arriving 
at this question of presumption. It is by that that we 
can measure their movements. 

This is a case prosecuted in the name of the Gov- 
ernment. I realize that oftentimes when a prosecu- 
tion is made in the name of the Government, we are 
very apt to think by reason of that fact that it leans, 
or that the line draws slightly to the side of the Gov- 
ernment — not at all. 

The millions and millions of people in the United 
States, and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in 
the United States, are not after Scott Nearing for tell- 
ing the truth in a pamphlet, they are not asking his 
imprisonment in the penitentiary; and counsel in his 
opening intimated that the punishment was for the 
Court, that it might be from one day up to ten years, 
with a fine of from one cent up to ten thousand dollars ; 
but I tell you, and you know it for yourselves, that 
upon a finding of guilty for this offense, it does not 
mean an insignificant penalty at all. The penalty will 
be measured by the gravity of the offense which your 
verdict determines. Your verdict is not on an insig- 
nificant proposition. It is determining whether dur- 
ing a war these two parties, the school with its four 
thousand pupils and its influence, its teachers, and 
Scott Nearing with his friends and those with whom 

246 



he is acquainted, whether they were engaged in com- 
mitting a crime against the country by trying to de- 
stroy the effectiveness of the internal management of 
its army. Can you think of any greater crime in war 
time than for men to try to induce privates to rebel 
against their superiors? Cannot you see that that 
would merit a severe punishment? Cannot you see? 
Can you see anything more severe than such a situa- 
tion, if you were raising an army, than to have some- 
one go among them and stop them when the country 
is trying to raise them, and try to obstruct those 
efforts? The charge is grave, and the punishment will 
be commensurate with that. 

Assuming a logical application of punishment in 
view of the charge which is made — and I recall this 
to your mind because counsel brought it out, other- 
wise I would have said nothing about it because it is 
not within the purview of an attorney to comment on 
the punishment, as that is exclusively for the Court. 
The grave consequences, though, of verdicts, is that 
which would stimulate in the mind of a juryman al- 
ways to be alert to the necessity of keeping the pre- 
sumption of reasonable doubt alive and, gentlemen, 
you are now in a position in this case to decide as 
between the Government on the one hand and these 
defendants on the other. 

When counsel for the Government says it is of grave 
concern to the Government, I join and say, sure it is, 
yes, but I want to say that I would not expect and I 
do not expect a verdict that is not warranted by what 
has been presented to you, and I think that is well 
stated, that it should raise a certain hesitancy in your 
mind, on these facts that have been presented to you 
here. 

We are fighting under the theory that we want the 
truth; that we are entitled to the entire truth, when 

247 



we make up our conclusions, and not that we should 
be fed on half truths, and when we get an opinion from 
what we have been able to ascertain as the truth, we 
want the opportunity to express those opinions freely 
that others may possibly see our view. We want the 
information from all sources and to that we are en- 
titled. The people are entitled to change their judg- 
ment, for a judgment based on error and only half 
the truth will never be a good judgment. We ask that 
you say to the people of the United wStates by your 
verdict in this case that its citizens have the right to 
have the facts fully told, and to also vindicate the right 
of the people to state their theoretical conclusions and 
their ideas and their views and also that they should 
not be imprisoned because of conscientiously and hon- 
estly stating them, and because there may be some 
speculation about someone having committed an 
offense by a wrongful use of a phrase here and there. 
You cannot stake the liberty of a nation, which is the 
liberty of the press and the right to speak on possibil- 
ities and the chance of someone being led astray by 
the publication of a pamphlet or a leaflet or speech. 
Take no such chance with it, gentlemen, and if there 
is any leaning to be done, take no chance upon it, take 
your chances upon the side of the freest possible ex- 
pression of it, because only in that way can we be sure 
that a man will not be carrying around harbored in 
his heart vicious dislike towards the constitution or 
to the form of the government under which he lives, 
and that government will command the man's respect 
which gives the greatest opportunity for praise and 
blame, and no government, no country is entitled to 
compliment if it does not rise to meet the light of cen- 
sure or criticism. 



248 



The Verdict 

At the close of the trial and before the case was sub- 
mitted to the jury, the Court (Judge Julius M. Mayer) 
upon motion of the attorneys for the defendants, dis- 
missed the first and second counts of the indictment, 
holding that there had not been sufficient evidence 
adduced to prove a conspiracy between the defendants. 
The court submitted the case to the jury on the third 
and fourth counts. The jury found Scott Nearing not 
guilty and the American Socialist Society guilty on 
the third and fourth counts. After the verdict had 
been rendered the defendants' attorneys' motion to set 
aside the verdict against the Society was granted as 
to the third count and decision was reserved by the 
Court upon the motion to set aside the verdict against 
the Society as to the fourth count. Briefs were sub- 
mitted on the motion and the Court later denied the 
motion, at the same time writing an opinion. Upon 
the day set for sentence, March 21st, 1919, the Court 
imposed a fine of three thousand dollars against the 
Society. The maximum fine provided by the Espion- 
age Law is ten thousand dollars. The Court allowed 
the attorneys for the Society until April 14th, 1919, 
to submit a writ of error which the Court stated it 
would allow, such a writ of error being a necessary 
part of the procedure connected with an appeal either 
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals or to 
the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted 
a stay of execution on the fine until April 14, 1919, 
without requiring the Society to file any security. 



249 



The Rand School of Social Science 

Located in 
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE 

7 East 15th Street, New York City 

The Training School of the Workers 
of ^America 

Algernon Lee — Educational Director 

TRAINING CLASSES (102) 
LOCAL EVENING COURSES (103) 
CORRESPONDENCE DEPARTMENT (104) 
SUMMER SCHOOL (105) 



Send for descriptive circulars by numbers given above, to 
Mrs. Bertha H. Mailly, Executive Secretary, 7 East 15th 
Street, New York City. 



"I would found an institution for the teaching of the 
Social Sciences from the standpoint of Socialism." 

—CARRIE A. RAND 

Founder of The Rand School of Social Science. 



"Merely fighting the capitalist system should not be 
our aim. What is of far more consequence is that we 
educate the masses of workers. It is the power of 
knowledge that will triumph over the dark forces. If 
we can teach the truth to the people, they will free 
themselves." —ELIZABETH BAER. 



The Rand School of Social Science 

7 EAST 15th STREET 
New York City 

Offers the Following Courses 
by Correspondence 

1. Elements of Socialism By Anna A. Maley 

2. Social History By Algernon Lee 

3. Socialist Economics By Algernon Lee 

4. The Labor Movement, 

By Morris Hillquit and Others 

5. The Human Element in Economics, 

By Scott Nearing 

6. The Fundamentals of Socialism, 

David P. Berenberg 

FEES LOW 

Ask for Descriptive Circular 104 

Address 

DAVID P. BERENBERG 

Director of Correspondence Department 

7 East 15th Street, New York City 



American Labor Year Book 

1917-1918 

A volume of 384 pages of written and tabular matter 
indispensable to every student of the Socialist and 
Labor movements. 

Edited by 
ALEXANDER TRACHTENBERG 

Director, Department of Labor Research 
Rand School of Social Science 

A comprehensive survey of the progress of the So- 
cialist and Labor movements in the United States and 
abroad and a compilation of facts concerning political, 
social and economic conditions. 

Among the contributors are the following: 

Professor Scott Nearing, Florence Kelley, Morris 
Hillquit, William Green, Secretary, United Mine 
Workers' of America, Mayor D. Hoan of Milwaukee, 
Professor George G. Groat, W. S. Carter, President, 
Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 
Basil M. Manly, Ph. Snowden, M. P., Dr. I. M. Rubi- 
now. Dr. Helen L. Sumner, Fred Hewitt, Int. Ma- 
chinists' Union, Prof. W. F. Ogburn, Dr. G. M. Price. 

Order Now — Edition Is Limited 

Single copies Paper-bound, 60 cents; Cloth, $1.25 

Both 1916 and 1917-18 issues Paper-bound, 1.00 

Cloth bound, 2.00 

Special prices in large quantities 

Order from 

RAND BOOK STORE 

7 EAST 15th STREET 

New York 



PUBLICATIONS 

OF 
THE RAND SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 

Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels 10c. 

American Labor Year Book, 

(Edited by Trachtenberg) Paper, 60c. Cloth, $1.25 

Socialism Summed Up Hillquit 10c. 

Work and Pay Nearing 10c. 

The Coal Question Nearing 10c. 

Woman of the Future Lilienthal 5c. 

Debs' Decision Nearing 10c. 

From Fireside to Factory Lilienthal 10c. 

American Socialists and the War, 

(Edited by Trachtenberg) 10c. 

Must We Arm (Debate — Hillquit-Gardner) 10c. 

Public Ownership Throughout the World, 

Laidler 10c. 

Food and the People Waldman 10c. 

Socialists in the Board of Aldermen (N. Y.), 

Clark and Solomon 10c. 
Socialists in the New York Assembly, 

Claessens and Feigenbaum 25c. 

Socialism , Berenberg 10c. 

Bolsheviks and Soviets Williams 10c. 

Address All Communications Concerning Books to 

RAND BOOK STORE 

7 East 15th Street, New York City 



THE RAND BOOK STORE 

THE RAND BOOK STORE is located on the ground 
floor of the People's House, and its collection of Socialist 
and radical books and magazines cannot be excelled any- 
where in America. 

Started originally to cater to the needs of the students 
of The Rand School of Social Science, it has developed to 
the point where it serves a large number of Socialists, 
radicals and labor men anc| women in America. 

All books that are part of progressive thought are sure to 
be found on the shelves of THE RAND BOOK STORE. 

SPECIAL LIBRARIES 

One of the important features of THE RAND BOOK 
STORE is the selection of libraries on special topics to meet 
the demands from all over the country for recommended 
reading. The Rand Book Store has enlisted some of the 
leading scholars to prepare lists on such subjects as Social- 
ism, Labor, American History, European History, Econo- 
mics, Sociology, Philosophy, Science, Education, etc. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS 

THE RAND BOOK STORE will be glad to take sub- 
scriptions for all magazines and newspapers published in the 
United States and Europe, and assures prompt service. 

INCOME DEVOTED TO EDUCATION 

The patrons of THE RAND BOOK STORE give sub- 
stantial support to radical education since all the profit is 
turned over to The Rand School of Social Science, the only 
Socialist Training School for the working class in America. 






LBJL f 19 



